Medieval America puts six to death .

Then the act of murder is repeated . That's no solution. Murder by government decree is still murder- cold-blooded murder. That's sick.
Actually, Moon, it isn't.

Murder is the illegal taking of a human life.

If the death is "by government decree"...it is not illegal...and not murder.
 
The death penalty is not a deterrent,

Let's talk about those who were put to death and later found innocent

By definition an *accident*



Anyone who supposes that life in prison without the chance of parole (the most frequently used alternative to capital punishment) is less gruesome or brutal or disgusting...has to think about that a bit longer.

There is no punishment I can think of that is excessively cruel than life in prison without the chance of parole. It is MUCH more humane to execute the individual.
 
Actually, Moon, it isn't.

Murder is the illegal taking of a human life.

If the death is "by government decree"...it is not illegal...and not murder.
That's true if you believe that there is a 'legal ' taking of human life- a belief to which I do not subscribe.
There are greater laws than national laws- and greater laws than Man's.

Apologies for the sermon. I am an Internet ordained preacher.

Haw, haw...............................................haw.
 
Anyone who supposes that life in prison without the chance of parole (the most frequently used alternative to capital punishment) is less gruesome or brutal or disgusting...has to think about that a bit longer.

There is no punishment I can think of that is excessively cruel than life in prison without the chance of parole. It is MUCH more humane to execute the individual.
Charles Manson seemed to enjoy life in prison got married loved painting etc

He looks in total agony

29782096-29782096.jpg
 
Anyone who supposes that life in prison without the chance of parole (the most frequently used alternative to capital punishment) is less gruesome or brutal or disgusting...has to think about that a bit longer.

There is no punishment I can think of that is excessively cruel than life in prison without the chance of parole. It is MUCH more humane to execute the individual.

Most on death row plead and beg for death sentence to be turned to life... tells u right there which they consider worse

Ted Bundy cried his ass off he was terrified going into execution..he wanted to stay in his cell
 
Last edited:
That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I think the death penalty is morally wrong. People are going to come back with "murder is morally wrong also" and that's true, but we'd be talking apples and oranges. A murderer should be punished but I have a problem with an individual deciding that the murderer should be put to death., instead of given life w/o parole.
My position is more nuanced than that. Commit a murder, go to prison. Commit a second afterwards, go to Hell (be killed). Commit a violent crime, go to prison. Continue to commit violent crimes, go to Hell.

The death penalty should exist as a deterrent to those who choose to be career criminals. When you commit crimes on a continuing basis and deterrents like fines, jail time, and the like have had no effect, it's time we off you so you don't continue to be a huge negative burden on society.

Your version says you are fine with someone who has committed murder, then commits more murder after being punished, then goes to prison and murders another inmate or a guard in prison. I say, enough is enough. At some point we shouldn't tolerate your violence any longer. Kill the mutherfucker.
 
I reduced your ..er....contribution. The rest of it was just you attempting to convince others that you are not just a blood-lusting psychopath.
You are an idiot. That is taken completely out of context, something the Left loves to do because they can't argue the concept any other way.
 
My position is more nuanced than that. Commit a murder, go to prison. Commit a second afterwards, go to Hell (be killed). Commit a violent crime, go to prison. Continue to commit violent crimes, go to Hell.

The death penalty should exist as a deterrent to those who choose to be career criminals. When you commit crimes on a continuing basis and deterrents like fines, jail time, and the like have had no effect, it's time we off you so you don't continue to be a huge negative burden on society.

Your version says you are fine with someone who has committed murder, then commits more murder after being punished, then goes to prison and murders another inmate or a guard in prison. I say, enough is enough. At some point we shouldn't tolerate your violence any longer. Kill the mutherfucker.
I don't agree it's a given that many lifers will kill guards or inmates. For guards, I looked for current stats but only found this one from 2013. Feel free to correct the math but it looks like 36 guards killed in a prison system with more than 2 million inmates.
  • There were 113 correctional officer fatalities reported — the fatality rate was 2.7 per 100,000 FTEs (CI = ± 0.8);
  • Assaults, violent acts and transportation-related fatalities accounted for 80 percent of all fatalities;
  • Among fatal assaults and violent acts, 62 percent were due to homicides and 38 percent were due to suicides by self-inflicted gunshot wounds; and
  • Of the homicides, 65 percent were committed by inmates and the remaining were committed by coworkers, strangers or personal relations of the correctional officer.
113 x .8 = 90.4 violent acts 90.4 x .62 = 56.05 homicides 56.05 x .65 = 36.4 guards killed by inmates.

Then you're saying that it's okay for the state to kill a murdering prisoner but not for another prisoner to do it when the end result's the same.

A lot of death penalty advocates use the monetary argument to justify killing, i.e. it's cheaper to kill the guy than to lock him up for life. None of the above positions make sense to me. They are all "eye for an eye." I'm not trying to change anybody's mind, I'm just giving my reasons for not supporting capital punishment. And again, I believe the reason is that it's immoral.
 
Five executions in six days. These primitives are not fit to govern a small toilet, let alone a state.


six.jpg



Remind me how many hostages did the Hamas terrorist just execute?
 
Manson spent over 75% of his life in prisons. That's what he was accustomed to. He wasn't someone who was a success at life outside.
Manson spent over 75% of his life in prisons

At a huge cost to the taxpayer's...he should have been put to death in 1972

Not getting married and eating cake
 
I don't agree it's a given that many lifers will kill guards or inmates. For guards, I looked for current stats but only found this one from 2013. Feel free to correct the math but it looks like 36 guards killed in a prison system with more than 2 million inmates.
  • There were 113 correctional officer fatalities reported — the fatality rate was 2.7 per 100,000 FTEs (CI = ± 0.8);
  • Assaults, violent acts and transportation-related fatalities accounted for 80 percent of all fatalities;
  • Among fatal assaults and violent acts, 62 percent were due to homicides and 38 percent were due to suicides by self-inflicted gunshot wounds; and
  • Of the homicides, 65 percent were committed by inmates and the remaining were committed by coworkers, strangers or personal relations of the correctional officer.
113 x .8 = 90.4 violent acts 90.4 x .62 = 56.05 homicides 56.05 x .65 = 36.4 guards killed by inmates.

Then you're saying that it's okay for the state to kill a murdering prisoner but not for another prisoner to do it when the end result's the same.

A lot of death penalty advocates use the monetary argument to justify killing, i.e. it's cheaper to kill the guy than to lock him up for life. None of the above positions make sense to me. They are all "eye for an eye." I'm not trying to change anybody's mind, I'm just giving my reasons for not supporting capital punishment. And again, I believe the reason is that it's immoral.
So, the death of 113, or 36, people at the hands of prisoners in prisons is an acceptable loss compared to the loss of say an equal number of murderers, rapists, or repeat violent career criminals being put to death for you hum? 113, 36, whatever the number of people who committed no crime should have to die because you are unwilling to kill those that murder, rape, or repeatedly commit violent crimes?

Great set of morals you have there. Oh, by the way, I've never mentioned the monetary aspect of this, just the moral relevance of allowing a monster to remain alive to kill more people, commit more crime, while innocents suffer for it. I find that immoral and unacceptable.
 
Then the act of murder is repeated . That's no solution. Murder by government decree is still murder- cold-blooded murder. That's sick.
It isn't murder it is legal killing. So do you think your preferred country killing its enemies is sick?
 
Sure it is. You can't commit more crimes if you are dead... except maybe voting Democrat...

What do you do in this scenario? Someone murders another and is sent to prison for life without parole. While in prison they murder someone. What's a fitting punishment for that? What if they were put to death instead of sent to prison?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenne...ff was one of 20,to have begun killing again.
Kenneth McDuff in Texas was in jail for murder he was released and ultimately killed many more people.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_McDuff#:~:text=McDuff was one of 20,to have begun killing again.
Kenneth McDuff in Texas was in jail for murder he was released and ultimately killed many more people.
There's Thomas Silverstein...

This guy was a real piece of work. In addition an original armed bank robbery charge, Silverstein once in prison killed 3 other inmates and a guard. The federal prison system's solution was essentially infinite solitary confinement, not some permanent solution since he killed the guard while in solitary confinement.


So, by keeping this POS alive, he managed to kill 4 people all while in prison. Multiple life sentences and solitary confinement didn't stop that. Did those other inmates and the guard deserve to die because Silverstein's life was more valuable than theirs?
 
Back
Top