Executing people under the age of 18?

More proof that you are the troll here. Look if you just want to argue with me for no reason, then this ain't the place for you WM. Ignore my argument? Fine by me. Only makes you look weak.
 
KingRaw! said:
More proof that you are the troll here. Look if you just want to argue with me for no reason, then this ain't the place for you WM. Ignore my argument? Fine by me. Only makes you look weak.
Click to expand...

KingRaw, you cannot seriously be a serious poster. It's just not possible.

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
:mad::mad::mad::mad:
:mad::mad::mad:
:mad::mad::mad:
:mad::mad:
:mad:
:mad::mad:
:mad::mad::mad:
:mad::mad::mad::mad:
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:





However, if you would like me to, once more, describe to you why the death penalty costs so much, I will.

To make it cheap enough so that it wouldn't cost as much as life in prison, we'd have to execute innocent people. If we just took the people straight out of the courtroom and shot them, sure, it would be a lot cheaper. But 120 people have been exonerated on death row in the past 30 years, out of a 2000 that have been executed. You'd have killed those people.

That's why life in prison is so much more efficient. Under life in prison, you simply wait for the evidence to come in. You don't have that luxury under the death penalty. You have to give them automatic appeals, and it's gotta take a while, or else we've turned ourselves into murderers of innocent men. And that process is as expensive as fuck.

The actual lethal injection, too, costs a lot of money. Even a firing squad, as you suggest, would require a lot of money.
 
KingRaw! said:
Capital punishment saves us money by not feeding, clothing and giving luxaries to rapists and murderers for 50 years.
Click to expand...
Rubbish, when compared to the cost of keeping them in special cells and the cost of their attorney's fees, coupled with all their appeals, it costs less to house them for 50 years.
 
The death penalty is a solid program, and very deserving in certain circumstances. If a man broke into your home raped your wife, killed her, and your children to steal your stuff, a man shoots a police officers while trying to flee, I can think of many circumstances where the death penalty fits the crime. Do I think it could be applied more effectively, of course, that's not a valid excuse for it's abolishment, simply reform.
 
WRL said:
The death penalty is a solid program, and very deserving in certain circumstances. If a man broke into your home raped your wife, killed her, and your children to steal your stuff, a man shoots a police officers while trying to flee, I can think of many circumstances where the death penalty fits the crime. Do I think it could be applied more effectively, of course, that's not a valid excuse for it's abolishment, simply reform.
Click to expand...

No. No death penalty. Under any circumstances. Period.
 
Watermark said:
No. No death penalty. Under any circumstances. Period.
Click to expand...

Do you have a wife/husband and children? Police officers? It certainly applies to the most vicious irredeemable criminals. There are some acts so brutal, and heinous the people deserve death for their crimes, not a tax payer funded roof, food, and cable tv.
 
In some instances, I have principles. Now, how can I say that the death penalty is applicable for some heinous crimes and not for others? I just don't think the death penalty should be used. It's simply not productive. Life in prison without parole is good enough for me. And then, I only believe in that for the protection of the public. Most other nations do well enough with a maximum of 15 years to life - America is one of the few nations that even allows life without parole, even in people under the age of 18. It's good enough of a punishment that they'll never get out.

Why - look at my bleedin heart.
 
WRL said:
Do you have a wife/husband and children? Police officers? It certainly applies to the most vicious irredeemable criminals. There are some acts so brutal, and heinous the people deserve death for their crimes, not a tax payer funded roof, food, and cable tv.
Click to expand...

No, there isn't. The death penalty doesn't erase the crime.
 
And really, anyway WRL, how many people are on death row for murder-rape? You know as well as I do that it's used for less heinous crimes all the time. Quit being disingenous. If we restricted it to the circumstances you listed above it would almost never be used anyway.

New York technically allows it for cop-killing, but they haven't executed anyone in 30 years.
 
Shooting someone in the head is cheaper than keeping them alive for 50 years. Are you a bunch of idiots or what?
 
The following should get the death penalty....Murderers, rapists, child molesters, violent gang members, drug dealers, armed robbers
 
Watermark said:
In some instances, I have principles. Now, how can I say that the death penalty is applicable for some heinous crimes and not for others? I just don't think the death penalty should be used. It's simply not productive. Life in prison without parole is good enough for me. And then, I only believe in that for the protection of the public. Most other nations do well enough with a maximum of 15 years to life - America is one of the few nations that even allows life without parole, even in people under the age of 18. It's good enough of a punishment that they'll never get out.

Why - look at my bleedin heart.
Click to expand...


Yeah, providing them with TV, food, clothing, excersise yards etc at the expense of taxpayers is sure showing them.
 
KingRaw! said:
Shooting someone in the head is cheaper than keeping them alive for 50 years. Are you a bunch of idiots or what?
Click to expand...

:mad:

No, its not. There are legal processes you know. These legal processes cost more in enacting capital punishment than in carrying out a life sentence.

You could argue that there is no more due process in this country in which case it would be cheaper, but you're just a dopey kid with a frowny face, and your argument would make no sense.
:mad:
:mad::mad::mad:
:mad:
:mad::mad:
 
Damocles said:
Rubbish, when compared to the cost of keeping them in special cells and the cost of their attorney's fees, coupled with all their appeals, it costs less to house them for 50 years.
Click to expand...


Let's see.....You are found quilty of manslaughter. You are sentenced to death. (Later that afternoon he gets shot in the head by some official) How the hell is that more expensive than keeping them alive for 50 years!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top