DC Sniper Begins Questioning Witnesses - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to General Talk

DC Sniper Begins Questioning Witnesses

Moderator: Football Moderators

Re: Re:

Postby Madison » Tue Nov 10, 2009 7:15 pm

bigh0rt wrote:Some people call this "soft" and say that ideologies like this are why "America is wearing a skirt now", and want an eye for an eye.


That would be me. :-D

I just have zero sympathy or compassion for murderers. Murder is the very last line for an individual to cross and if an individual does cross that line and murder someone, then I believe we as a society have a responsibility to end that person's life, not only to protect our society but also to send the message to other would be murderers that if they cross that line, their life is over, there's no coming back from that. Of course, we currently don't send that message, but we need to fix the system and get that message sent loud and clear. Shortening the length of time between the sentencing and the execution would help solve that issue (7 years is way, way, way too long).

FearandLoathinginATL wrote:I'm glad not everyone on the interweb is completely freaking insane... Im just going to chalk this thread up to people talking big online, and maybe, just maybe, I can keep my hope in humanity. Maybe.


Supporting the death penalty does not make someone insane. Suggesting retribution or that an "eye for an eye" would be fair does not make someone insane.

Insane is having compassion for worthless animals that take innocent lives without even blinking an eye. Insane is feeding, clothing, housing, and guarding those animals, rather than putting a bullet through their head and moving on.

And no, for a lot of people this isn't "talking big online", it is simply the way we feel.
Image

I am the Reaper of Men,
The Chaser of Souls,
The Weaver of Nightmares,
I am The Heart of Darkness.
I now, and ever will be,
The Purity of Evil.
Madison
Lord of Darkness
Lord of Darkness

User avatar
ExecutiveMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeInnovative MemberMatchup Meltdown ChampionLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5979
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Re: Re:

Postby FearandLoathinginATL » Tue Nov 10, 2009 10:09 pm

Madison wrote:Murder is the very last line for an individual to cross and if an individual does cross that line and murder someone, then I believe we as a society have a responsibility to end that person's life, not only to protect our society but also to send the message to other would be murderers that if they cross that line, their life is over, there's no coming back from that.


There is no evidence what-so-ever that the death penalty actually deters crime. None. In fact, in 2008, states with the death penalty had a murder rate of 5.5%(per 100,000 people) and those without it had a rate of 3.3%. According to the FBI, last year the South had the highest murder rate of anywhere in the nation and accounted for 80% of its executions. The Northeast, which accounts for 1% of executions, had the lowest murder rate. Not to mention, the US is one of a handful of countries that still allow the death penalty, yet we murder more people than 90% of the world. There are tons more stats out there but I would be here all night presenting all the evidence.

Madison wrote:Shortening the length of time between the sentencing and the execution would help solve that issue (7 years is way, way, way too long).


There have been roughly 1200 executions since 1976. In that same period of time, 136 people have been found innocent while sitting on death row. If even 10% of the people sitting on death row are innocent, there needs to be a substantial amount of time for those people, and our justice system, to make sure that when someone is sentenced to death, that person is guilty. We can't just take people outside the courthouse after the trial and "put a bullet through their head and move on." I would think that our justice system taking time to make sure they made the right call would be a bonus.

Something else that no one ever brings up is the additional costs of the death penalty. For example, New Jersey estimates it has spent $253 million on the death penalty since 1983(this is over the cost of serving life without parole). On average, it takes about 3x as much money to try a man, wait through appeals, and execute him, than "feeding, clothing, housing, and guarding those animals." I could think of a number of ways states could be better using the millions of dollars they spend each time someone is sentenced to death. Especially in these hard economic times.

Madison wrote:Supporting the death penalty does not make someone insane. Suggesting retribution or that an "eye for an eye" would be fair does not make someone insane.

And no, for a lot of people this isn't "talking big online", it is simply the way we feel.


Supporting the death penalty was not what I was talking about when I referred to someone being insane. What I was talking about was the few comments about public execution, extermination, and dragging the offender from state to state so that he may be tortured by the families of the victims. That's what I hoped was "talking big online." If you guys honestly believe that doing anything like that would solve anything, for the offender,society, or the families, you have serious issues.

And I love how people always use the "an eye for an eye" excuse. Do you consider yourself Christian Madison? or anyone else that used that phrase in this thread? If so, I'm sure you're familiar with what Jesus had to say on the issue. "You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:38-39)

I didn't mean to get into a huge anti-death penalty speech here, but it bugs me how quickly people in the US resort to violence and murder, on both sides of the law, to solve their problems. Forgive me, maybe I've taken one too many Sociology/Anthropology classes in school, but I feel there are always other solutions to the problem.
Image
FearandLoathinginATL
Special Teams Staff
Special Teams Staff

User avatar

Posts: 232
Joined: 3 Oct 2009
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Carrollton, GA

Re: DC Sniper Begins Questioning Witnesses

Postby The Artful Dodger » Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:02 am

Personally, I disagree with the death penalty for two reasons. One is, it's actually more expensive to execute a prisoner than it is to have him serve life without parole. Much of that is tied into a drawn out legal process where there's more procedure set in place and generally, you have more people involved than you would for a regular trial (i.e. more lawyers, more experts). Jurors would also have to go through much more extensive testing so that no one has a quick-trigger bias for life or death. What you have is more time expended and hence, more money put in. Yes, it's all reliant on the costs of any appeal, but our legal system has to verify that once someone is guilty of murder that the offense is so bad that the death penalty is warranted. One appeal will lead to a year or two at the least of deliberation. The sad thing is, the history of capital punishment has its innocent victims, and the US is no exception, which is my second reason for being against it.

As for the death penalty stopping murders, the result is inconclusive at best. Like ATL said, I'd say the incidence of high murder rates are influenced by geographic and socioeconomic factors. In fact, a number of the former Confederate states have had a high murder rate as well as a higher rate of executions. Somehow, it hasn't worked and I don't really see how it will. Contrast that to California, which has had only 13 executions since 1976 and FWIW, homicide rates in L.A. County have declined over the past several years. There's much more to stopping crime, let alone homicides than enforcing the death penalty. Human beings are just more complex than a simple reward-and-punishment explanation of behavior goes, after all.

Back on tangent here, as far as publicly crucifying the guy goes (I'm surprised that hasn't been suggested yet), look, we're not China, who have some of the highest execution and torture rates anywhere (yes, that includes Texas). The basis of our government is still founded in the interest of protecting the most fundamental of human rights and if there's a death penalty in place, I still expect this government to execute someone in a humane, dignified manner (even if that person doesn't deserve to go out that way). Justice to me, is having that offender think about what he had done, ideally for the rest of his life.
Image
The Artful Dodger
Offensive Coordinator
Offensive Coordinator

User avatar
Matchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 924
Joined: 3 Feb 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Oh, you didn't know?

Re: Re:

Postby Cowboys 4 life » Wed Nov 11, 2009 2:12 am

FearandLoathinginATL wrote:There is no evidence what-so-ever that the death penalty actually deters crime. None. In fact, in 2008, states with the death penalty had a murder rate of 5.5%(per 100,000 people) and those without it had a rate of 3.3%. According to the FBI, last year the South had the highest murder rate of anywhere in the nation and accounted for 80% of its executions. The Northeast, which accounts for 1% of executions, had the lowest murder rate. Not to mention, the US is one of a handful of countries that still allow the death penalty, yet we murder more people than 90% of the world. There are tons more stats out there but I would be here all night presenting all the evidence.


In the states that didn't have the death penalty how many of the murderers that served their time went out and committed another crime?

David B. Muhlhausen, PhD, Senior Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis, in testimony delivered on June 27, 2007 before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights of the US Senate Judiciary Committee, stated:

"The recent studies using panel data techniques have confirmed what we learned decades ago: Capital punishment does, in fact, save lives [...] Over the years, several studies have demonstrated a link between executions and decreases in murder rates. In fact, studies done in recent years, using sophisticated panel data methods, consistently demonstrate a strong link between executions and reduced murder incidents. Using a panel data set of over 3,000 counties from 1977 to 1996, Professors Hashem Dezhbakhsh [and] Shepherd of Emory University found that each execution, on average, results in 18 fewer murders

They found that executions had a highly significant negative relationship with murder incidents. Additionally, the implementation of state moratoria is associated with the increased incidence of murders... While opponents of capital punishment allege that it is unfairly used against African–Americans, each additional execution deters the murder of 1.5 African–Americans. Further moratoria, commuted sentences, and death row removals appear to increase the incidence of murder... Americans support capital punishment for two good reasons. First, there is little evidence to suggest that minorities are treated unfairly. Second, capital punishment produces a strong deterrent effect that saves lives."

June 27, 2007 - David B. Muhlhausen, PhD

FearandLoathinginATL wrote:There have been roughly 1200 executions since 1976. In that same period of time, 136 people have been found innocent while sitting on death row.


How many were found innocent due to a technicality? Meaning how many actually murdered someone but since the evidence wasn't gathered in the right manner they got off?

FearandLoathinginATL wrote:Something else that no one ever brings up is the additional costs of the death penalty. For example, New Jersey estimates it has spent $253 million on the death penalty since 1983(this is over the cost of serving life without parole). On average, it takes about 3x as much money to try a man, wait through appeals, and execute him, than "feeding, clothing, housing, and guarding those animals." I could think of a number of ways states could be better using the millions of dollars they spend each time someone is sentenced to death. Especially in these hard economic times.


Executions do not have to cost that much. We could hang them and re-use the rope. No cost! Or we could use firing squads and ask for volunteer firing squad members who would provide their own guns and ammunition. Again, no cost.

Throughout the time the death penalty has been put in place don't you think there are some people that we know are guilty that will still appeal anyway just to add time until their death?

FearandLoathinginATL wrote:And I love how people always use the "an eye for an eye" excuse. Do you consider yourself Christian Madison? or anyone else that used that phrase in this thread? If so, I'm sure you're familiar with what Jesus had to say on the issue. "You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:38-39)

I didn't mean to get into a huge anti-death penalty speech here, but it bugs me how quickly people in the US resort to violence and murder, on both sides of the law, to solve their problems. Forgive me, maybe I've taken one too many Sociology/Anthropology classes in school, but I feel there are always other solutions to the problem.


Don't know about Madison but I made the comment and I consider myself a Christian. what Jesus is talking about is a trivial crime meaning you don't have to get revenge on small trivial crimes. Instead forgive and forget. Lets change the sentence a bit "If anyone shoots you in the right cheek, pray that it goes out the bottom of your mouth and not up into your brain killing you. That way you can turn the other cheek and ask him for something to stop the bleeding."
Image
Image
Cowboys 4 life
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerPick 3 Weekly WinnerCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 9516
(Past Year: 87)
Joined: 18 Jul 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Somewhere between Silicon Valley and a bunch of Fruits

Re: Re:

Postby Madison » Wed Nov 11, 2009 3:06 am

FearandLoathinginATL wrote:
Madison wrote:Murder is the very last line for an individual to cross and if an individual does cross that line and murder someone, then I believe we as a society have a responsibility to end that person's life, not only to protect our society but also to send the message to other would be murderers that if they cross that line, their life is over, there's no coming back from that.


There is no evidence what-so-ever that the death penalty actually deters crime. None. In fact, in 2008, states with the death penalty had a murder rate of 5.5%(per 100,000 people) and those without it had a rate of 3.3%. According to the FBI, last year the South had the highest murder rate of anywhere in the nation and accounted for 80% of its executions. The Northeast, which accounts for 1% of executions, had the lowest murder rate. Not to mention, the US is one of a handful of countries that still allow the death penalty, yet we murder more people than 90% of the world. There are tons more stats out there but I would be here all night presenting all the evidence.


The numbers are wrong because the death penalty is not used the way it should be used. The death penalty is not a deterrent when the murderer is made a celebrity and sits on death row for 25 years before being executed (or 7 years in this case). If you truely don't believe that the murder rate would go down if criminals knew that a bullet would find their brain immediately after they are found guilty of murder, then I will simply tell you to use your own mind rather than faulty numbers before answering.

FearandLoathinginATL wrote:
Madison wrote:Shortening the length of time between the sentencing and the execution would help solve that issue (7 years is way, way, way too long).


There have been roughly 1200 executions since 1976. In that same period of time, 136 people have been found innocent while sitting on death row. If even 10% of the people sitting on death row are innocent, there needs to be a substantial amount of time for those people, and our justice system, to make sure that when someone is sentenced to death, that person is guilty. We can't just take people outside the courthouse after the trial and "put a bullet through their head and move on." I would think that our justice system taking time to make sure they made the right call would be a bonus.

Something else that no one ever brings up is the additional costs of the death penalty. For example, New Jersey estimates it has spent $253 million on the death penalty since 1983(this is over the cost of serving life without parole). On average, it takes about 3x as much money to try a man, wait through appeals, and execute him, than "feeding, clothing, housing, and guarding those animals." I could think of a number of ways states could be better using the millions of dollars they spend each time someone is sentenced to death. Especially in these hard economic times.


How much time do you consider to be "substancial"? Murder trials are not like cramming for a college or high school test for a few minutes at the last minute and then only having an hour to complete the test or fail. Murder trials are not like finding out you've got a meeting with the boss in an hour so you cram, clean up, and do everything you can so all is good. Murder trials are long. There is plenty of time for planning, researching, interviewing, etc. If the criminal and their lawyer are too incompetent to raise and prove something as simple as "reasonable doubt", then no amount of time will save that person. They have "substancial" time prior to the trial and during the trial, any additional time is a waste of time and money.

How many of those convicted and released were actually guilty though? Of course that's not a question you can answer, so I'll simply say that I'd happily and easily welcome the tradeoff of bringing in a real law with real teeth over the joke of a law we currently have. Unfortunately too many people in this country don't have the stomach for that, so we're stuck in this downward spiral that won't be getting any better. :-/

And you can toss the costs argument completely out the window. :-b The only reason it costs more to execute a murderer is due to those who wish to protect the rabid dogs and have forced those costs to happen. A blindfold and a bullet isn't expensive at all, anything beyond that is an absurd waste of money. But of course those who can't stomach doing what needs to be done to protect a country has caused the costs to be as amazingly stupid as they are. Those same people are why our troops are fighting battles filled with stupid rules while our enemies fight with no rules (golly gee, the enemy fights the way "war" is supposed to be fought) and our troops keep coming home in body bags... but that's a different argument for a different day.

FearandLoathinginATL wrote:
Madison wrote:Supporting the death penalty does not make someone insane. Suggesting retribution or that an "eye for an eye" would be fair does not make someone insane.

And no, for a lot of people this isn't "talking big online", it is simply the way we feel.


Supporting the death penalty was not what I was talking about when I referred to someone being insane. What I was talking about was the few comments about public execution, extermination, and dragging the offender from state to state so that he may be tortured by the families of the victims. That's what I hoped was "talking big online." If you guys honestly believe that doing anything like that would solve anything, for the offender,society, or the families, you have serious issues.

And I love how people always use the "an eye for an eye" excuse. Do you consider yourself Christian Madison? or anyone else that used that phrase in this thread? If so, I'm sure you're familiar with what Jesus had to say on the issue. "You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:38-39)

I didn't mean to get into a huge anti-death penalty speech here, but it bugs me how quickly people in the US resort to violence and murder, on both sides of the law, to solve their problems. Forgive me, maybe I've taken one too many Sociology/Anthropology classes in school, but I feel there are always other solutions to the problem.


I do believe making the punishment fit the crime would deter the crime from happening (and by golly, isn't that exactly what punishments are supposed to do?!?!?!?!). Currently the punishments do not fit the crime, so of course those laws won't deter anything. Slice, dice, and rape 30 teenage (or younger) kids? Welcome to 20+ years of free food and shelter, and if you're lucky, you'll even be a big news star. You'll write books, do interviews, be in the papers, on television, and all kinds of stuff to get your name out there. And that's if you're in a state that has the death penalty. Otherwise, you get to live out the rest of your life. I can certainly see why some people would knowingly and willingly make that trade, and that's exactly why the punishments are not a deterrent (which makes your stats worthless - no offense meant, just the truth).

Flip it though, if the criminal has to take the exact same abuse he gave, prior to being executed, think those criminals would still make the same choice? Of course they wouldn't and I say let's institute that law and see for ourselves just how good a real law with real teeth works. ;-D

Yes, I am a Christian and I could/would still flip the switch of an electric chair, push the poison needle, drop the floor (noose), fire the bullet, drag the criminal down the street tied to my car, or whatever else in order to rid our society of a convicted murderer, and admit to God himself when I die that I did what was in the best interest of our society. If He disagrees, then of course that's fine and I will spend eternity burning in hell, but I would still believe I did what was in the best interest of society.

No worries about the speech, I wrote one myself :-b and I enjoy good discussion. ;-D I myself would love to see no one ever get murdered again, but I know we'll never have the laws in place to actually deter murder, the country has become way too soft for it to ever happen. Just know that not all dogs can be saved, sometimes there's no choice but to put the rabid dog down. ;-)
Image

I am the Reaper of Men,
The Chaser of Souls,
The Weaver of Nightmares,
I am The Heart of Darkness.
I now, and ever will be,
The Purity of Evil.
Madison
Lord of Darkness
Lord of Darkness

User avatar
ExecutiveMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeInnovative MemberMatchup Meltdown ChampionLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5979
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Re: Re:

Postby FearandLoathinginATL » Wed Nov 11, 2009 4:41 am

Jesus, I have two of you on me now :-b

Cowboys 4 life wrote:In the states that didn't have the death penalty how many of the murderers that served their time went out and committed another crime?


The equivalent of death in a non-death penalty state would be life without parole. I highly doubt any state without the death penalty would take a crime of such caliber lightly. It's not like they would be sending them away for 25 years and letting them out. They would be spending the rest of their lives in prison.

As for the study, we can both probably pull numbers on both sides of the argument all night.

Cowboys 4 life wrote:How many were found innocent due to a technicality? Meaning how many actually murdered someone but since the evidence wasn't gathered in the right manner they got off?


Here is the criteria to be released from death row:
Defendants must have been convicted, sentenced to death and subsequently either-
a) their conviction was overturned AND
i) they were acquitted at re-trial or
ii) all charges were dropped
b) they were given an absolute pardon by the governor based on new evidence of innocence.

Im not going to read over every case, but I highly doubt any of those options would even be considered unless there was something was seriously wrong with the convicted's first trial. If someone is going to get off on some sort of technicality, it probably would have been the first trial. At the second one, it's usually new evidence coming into the picture, the murder weapon, witnesses, etc.

Cowboys 4 life wrote:Executions do not have to cost that much. We could hang them and re-use the rope. No cost! Or we could use firing squads and ask for volunteer firing squad members who would provide their own guns and ammunition. Again, no cost.


While the executions themselves are expensive, the large majority of the money comes from prosecuting the accused the first time, and for the appeals process.

Cowboys 4 life wrote:Throughout the time the death penalty has been put in place don't you think there are some people that we know are guilty that will still appeal anyway just to add time until their death?


I'm sure there are plenty who do that, but for better or worse, that's our legal system. We can't just say that some people have the right to appeal their convictions as far as it goes and some can't. Just because they were convicted of a crime doesn't mean they are completely stripped of their rights in the eyes of the law.

Cowboys 4 life wrote:Don't know about Madison but I made the comment and I consider myself a Christian. what Jesus is talking about is a trivial crime meaning you don't have to get revenge on small trivial crimes. Instead forgive and forget. Lets change the sentence a bit "If anyone shoots you in the right cheek, pray that it goes out the bottom of your mouth and not up into your brain killing you. That way you can turn the other cheek and ask him for something to stop the bleeding."


I don't really want to get into a religious debate here, and feel free the read the chapter, but what he is talking about isn't really about the triviality of the offense. It's about knowing that only God is capable of passing judgments and that his are the only ones that matter. If you want to get into Heaven, know that you are good and don't worry about others. Have faith that God will take care of everything.
Image
FearandLoathinginATL
Special Teams Staff
Special Teams Staff

User avatar

Posts: 232
Joined: 3 Oct 2009
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Carrollton, GA

Re: Re:

Postby FearandLoathinginATL » Wed Nov 11, 2009 5:40 am

Madison wrote:The numbers are wrong because the death penalty is not used the way it should be used. The death penalty is not a deterrent when the murderer is made a celebrity and sits on death row for 25 years before being executed (or 7 years in this case). If you truely don't believe that the murder rate would go down if criminals knew that a bullet would find their brain immediately after they are found guilty of murder, then I will simply tell you to use your own mind rather than faulty numbers before answering.


Forget the numbers, don't you think the people who commit murder know ahead of time that they could be facing the death penalty? They do these crimes in full knowledge of their punishment. They may think they can beat the charges, but every one of them knows what could happen to them. So how does it exactly deter them? If it wasn't a premeditated murder, and it was a crime of passion, then how would a deterrent stop it? If they were so overcome with the need to kill this person, I doubt they would care about the punishment.

There is not even a remote possibility of someone being convicted and executed on the same day in this country or any other free society so I don't really see why you keep using that as an argument. This is not Soviet Russia. I can't believe that you would actually condone action like that. Sure you might get rid of a lot of criminals, but those criminals still have rights that you cant just strip away from them. In the mean time, you're probably killing dozens of innocent people every year. It couldn't be justified for any reason.

Madison wrote:There is plenty of time for planning, researching, interviewing, etc. If the criminal and their lawyer are too incompetent to raise and prove something as simple as "reasonable doubt", then no amount of time will save that person. They have "substancial" time prior to the trial and during the trial, any additional time is a waste of time and money.


So what happens if that person was stuck with a crappy public defender who totally messes up his case? Should he die because he didn't have the money to buy a competent lawyer? What if evidence comes to light after the trial, something the greatest lawyer in the world couldn't have foreseen? Sorry guy, tough break? When someone is sentenced to death every last step needs to be taken to ensure that person is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. If it takes every single day up until his execution date, he should be allowed it.

Madison wrote:How many of those convicted and released were actually guilty though?


I think this is like Cowboys question so just look up there. I'm sure they're not just letting anybody off death row, there would have to be good reason.

Madison wrote:And you can toss the costs argument completely out the window. :-b The only reason it costs more to execute a murderer is due to those who wish to protect the rabid dogs and have forced those costs to happen.


Those costs are the product of something called the 5th Amendment(nor shall any person be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law), not "those who wish to protect the rabid dogs." The Constitution's worked pretty well for 220 years, if you don't like it, move.

Madison wrote:Flip it though, if the criminal has to take the exact same abuse he gave, prior to being executed, think those criminals would still make the same choice? Of course they wouldn't and I say let's institute that law and see for ourselves just how good a real law with real teeth works. ;-D


I'm just going to stop responding to your comments about "real laws with real teeth" because honestly I think it's absurd for anyone to really believe that will fix anything. It may just be 5 in the morning, but I'm having a hard time believing that someone who is relatively patriotic(based on your comments about the troops) would suggest totally pissing all over the Constitution again and again, like you have in your last post. The laws we have in place to prevent the kind of punishment you continuely suggest dishing out are what make this country great.

Madison wrote:Yes, I am a Christian and I could/would still flip the switch of an electric chair, push the poison needle, drop the floor (noose), fire the bullet, drag the criminal down the street tied to my car, or whatever else in order to rid our society of a convicted murderer, and admit to God himself when I die that I did what was in the best interest of our society. If He disagrees, then of course that's fine and I will spend eternity burning in hell, but I would still believe I did what was in the best interest of society.


I in no way consider myself Christian, but I think I know enough about the religion to know that "good" Christians don't drag people down the street tied to their car, no matter how awful that person was. Ask your pastor/priest/whomever if they think that would be a good idea and get back to me with their response. :-?

Madison wrote:I myself would love to see no one ever get murdered again, but I know we'll never have the laws in place to actually deter murder, the country has become way too soft for it to ever happen.


No law, no matter how strict, will ever stop people from murdering each other. And maybe, instead of killing our way to a solution, we should take a look at the root of the problems that create the violence. ;-D
Image
FearandLoathinginATL
Special Teams Staff
Special Teams Staff

User avatar

Posts: 232
Joined: 3 Oct 2009
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Carrollton, GA

Re: Re:

Postby Madison » Wed Nov 11, 2009 8:02 am

FearandLoathinginATL wrote:Forget the numbers, don't you think the people who commit murder know ahead of time that they could be facing the death penalty? They do these crimes in full knowledge of their punishment. They may think they can beat the charges, but every one of them knows what could happen to them. So how does it exactly deter them? If it wasn't a premeditated murder, and it was a crime of passion, then how would a deterrent stop it? If they were so overcome with the need to kill this person, I doubt they would care about the punishment.

There is not even a remote possibility of someone being convicted and executed on the same day in this country or any other free society so I don't really see why you keep using that as an argument. This is not Soviet Russia. I can't believe that you would actually condone action like that. Sure you might get rid of a lot of criminals, but those criminals still have rights that you cant just strip away from them. In the mean time, you're probably killing dozens of innocent people every year. It couldn't be justified for any reason.


Sure, they know what I said earlier. Free roof over their head, food, medical care, etc. Beats living in the ghetto, trailer park, under a bridge, etc. What's so scary about that? Why would that deter a criminal? That's why I said the process needs to be sped up. In its current form, the death penalty law has no teeth. With no teeth, it cannot be a deterrent. So let's give that law some teeth! ;-D

Crime of passion? Temporary insanity is breaking into someone's house and rearranging their furniture. What you're talking about is rage, and if someone cannot control their temper, they must live with the consequences. Most people learn that as very young children.

And I wouldn't be stripping anyone's rights away. They forfeited their rights when they chose to murder someone.

FearandLoathinginATL wrote:So what happens if that person was stuck with a crappy public defender who totally messes up his case? Should he die because he didn't have the money to buy a competent lawyer? What if evidence comes to light after the trial, something the greatest lawyer in the world couldn't have foreseen? Sorry guy, tough break? When someone is sentenced to death every last step needs to be taken to ensure that person is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. If it takes every single day up until his execution date, he should be allowed it.


Blaming the lawyer or public defender is an old argument. If someone's innocent, it isn't hard to show reasonable doubt, and that's all that is needed to avoid the death penalty.

FearandLoathinginATL wrote:Those costs are the product of something called the 5th Amendment(nor shall any person be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law), not "those who wish to protect the rabid dogs." The Constitution's worked pretty well for 220 years, if you don't like it, move.


The court costs are the same regardless of if someone gets life in prison or the death penalty. It's what happens beyond that where the costs are different. Blindfold and a bullet is a whole lot cheaper than feeding, housing, guarding, providing medical care, etc, for criminals for the rest of their life.

FearandLoathinginATL wrote:I'm just going to stop responding to your comments about "real laws with real teeth" because honestly I think it's absurd for anyone to really believe that will fix anything. It may just be 5 in the morning, but I'm having a hard time believing that someone who is relatively patriotic(based on your comments about the troops) would suggest totally pissing all over the Constitution again and again, like you have in your last post. The laws we have in place to prevent the kind of punishment you continuely suggest dishing out are what make this country great.


It's absurd to think if a punishment was actually severe enough to deter the crime it was designed to deter (the whole point of laws/punishments), that it would work? Not sure if I'm supposed to be shocked at that statement, laugh until I cry, or figure out some way to explain to you just how far off the mark you are on that one.

Yep, from a military family. I myself did not serve due to bad eyes, but I have several relatives who served/are serving and I have much respect for the men and women who fight and sacrifice to keep our country free.

And with that said, as I said earlier, once a criminal chooses to murder someone, they are choosing to forfeit their right to live. I'm not doing anything to the Constitution. The criminal is choosing his/her fate, and we should oblige instead of protecting them.

FearandLoathinginATL wrote:I in no way consider myself Christian, but I think I know enough about the religion to know that "good" Christians don't drag people down the street tied to their car, no matter how awful that person was. Ask your pastor/priest/whomever if they think that would be a good idea and get back to me with their response. :-?


Of course my pastor would disagree with my opinion, but I've never tied religion to political decisions. Punishment for a crime is a political discussion, not a religious one for me. If a criminal chooses to brutally murder someone, then I have zero problems with said criminal getting the exact same treatment. It is as close to "fair" as anyone's going to get. The innocent victim didn't choose to be murdered, but the murderer did choose to die. As I said earlier, if God disagrees with that, so be it, it is really two seperate things. What I don't understand at all is people who would rather protect the murderer. The murderer chose to do what he/she did, but them getting the exact same treatment as what they dished out towards an innocent person/people is wrong? Totally blows my mind.

FearandLoathinginATL wrote:No law, no matter how strict, will ever stop people from murdering each other. And maybe, instead of killing our way to a solution, we should take a look at the root of the problems that create the violence. ;-D


Agreed, but a real law with real teeth would severely drop how often murders occur, and it would be an excellent starting point. Then the money saved by not having those court cases could be spent into research on how to eliminate the tiny fraction of murders that still occur.
Image

I am the Reaper of Men,
The Chaser of Souls,
The Weaver of Nightmares,
I am The Heart of Darkness.
I now, and ever will be,
The Purity of Evil.
Madison
Lord of Darkness
Lord of Darkness

User avatar
ExecutiveMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeInnovative MemberMatchup Meltdown ChampionLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5979
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Re: DC Sniper Begins Questioning Witnesses

Postby Metroid » Wed Nov 11, 2009 10:50 am

Wow Mad...reading some of that. 8-o

You guys have continuously avoided a question, or point, I'd like to hear your thoughts on. There have been a great number of people on Death row who have in fact been found innocent well after their trial during the lengthy appeals process. "Speeding up" the process would certainly result in putting innocent people to death. How would you feel if your friend or brother or you were falsely convicted of a murder and were put to death because your appeals rights were stripped or sped up? Are you seriously going to chop that up to being for the greater good?

Public beatings, floggings, dragging people around behind a car....wow, that's torture. Guys what you are asking for is to completely disregard our Constitution and Bill of Rights, everything this country was founded on. The stuff that our brave men and women in our armed forces are fighting for everyday. The stuff that separates us as a nation from all others. What you're talking about is Soviet Russia, or communist China, or even Nazi Germany. That is not the type of society I want to live in. My dad actually fought in a war against a person who believed in swift justice, a person who stripped civil rights away from his citizens, a person who after a short trial would have you taken out behind the court house and shot, his name was Adolf Hitler.

Anyway I don't want to insert myself into this discussion too much, but I just I have to say, thank god there are still plenty of people who still believe in what this country was founded on. :-°
Image
Metroid
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicCafe RankerGraphics ExpertEagle Eye
Posts: 22544
Joined: 9 Oct 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Bringing the funk in P-Town!

Re: DC Sniper Begins Questioning Witnesses

Postby Kilroy » Wed Nov 11, 2009 11:23 am

Metroid wrote:Wow Mad...reading some of that. 8-o

You guys have continuously avoided a question, or point, I'd like to hear your thoughts on. There have been a great number of people on Death row who have in fact been found innocent well after their trial during the lengthy appeals process. "Speeding up" the process would certainly result in putting innocent people to death. How would you feel if your friend or brother or you were falsely convicted of a murder and were put to death because your appeals rights were stripped or sped up? Are you seriously going to chop that up to being for the greater good?

Public beatings, floggings, dragging people around behind a car....wow, that's torture. Guys what you are asking for is to completely disregard our Constitution and Bill of Rights, everything this country was founded on. The stuff that our brave men and women in our armed forces are fighting for everyday. The stuff that separates us as a nation from all others. What you're talking about is Soviet Russia, or communist China, or even Nazi Germany. That is not the type of society I want to live in. My dad actually fought in a war against a person who believed in swift justice, a person who stripped civil rights away from his citizens, a person who after a short trial would have you taken out behind the court house and shot, his name was Adolf Hitler.

Anyway I don't want to insert myself into this discussion too much, but I just I have to say, thank god there are still plenty of people who still believe in what this country was founded on. :-°


I won't speak for anyone but myself, but I haven't sidestepped anything, nor do I necessarily agree with some of what's been said. I wasn't speaking in generalities, nor was I intending to engage in a debate about Capital Punishment (which I support, but that's a debate that just goes round and round and round places like this, much like any of the other big "hot buttons".). I was speaking about one murderous, pure and blackest evil s**tsack of a "man" (a term I use loosely, because he has about as much humanity in him as my toaster oven). I support the Death Penalty if only because monsters such as he walk among us, and when confronted with one there's only one course of action to take.

End the Son of a B***h.

I'm glad he's dead, and I guess that makes me whatever it makes me.
Image

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
Kilroy
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe Musketeer
Posts: 13587
Joined: 6 Oct 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Making My List and Checking It Twice...

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 18:36 hours
(and 56 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact