Should she be released?

Should she be released?

  • Total voters
    6
USFREEDOM911 said:
It's what we're allowed to do, under the law; but what does your comment have to do with letting the lawyer go and how punishment fits her?
Click to expand...

Because sometimes a victims death is swift. If the perpetrator is slowly dying in agonizing pain via cancer I'd say it would be a just punishment. But for some, victims are slowly tortured and die and the murderer lives out their days in peace (depending on legal counsel) that to me is an unjust punishment because I the taxpayer pay for the comfort to house, feed, and shower a killer who slowly killed a person.
 
Sun Devil said:
Because sometimes a victims death is swift. If the perpetrator is slowly dying in agonizing pain via cancer I'd say it would be a just punishment. But for some, victims are slowly tortured and die and the murderer lives out their days in peace (depending on legal counsel) that to me is an unjust punishment because I the taxpayer pay for the comfort to house, feed, and shower a killer who slowly killed a person.
Click to expand...

But the conversation is about one person and not the rest.
If you want to go off on a tangent; please do so in a different thread and try to stay focused on this particular criminal.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
You act like they just kick her out of the prison and she lays in the middle of the road, until she expires.
More then likely, she's going to go on Medicare/Medicaid (funded by the public); where she'll get medical and dental and she'll also get 3 meals a day, showers, and access to anything else she fucking wants.
Click to expand...

How do you know? You're assuming. My point is if we are going to argue about cost let's look at cost overtime. What is more costly?

A) A dying woman who has 18 months

or


a guy like Stanley "Tookie" Williams on deathrow for 10 years?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
But the conversation is about one person and not the rest.
If you want to go off on a tangent; please do so in a different thread and try to stay focused on this particular criminal.
Click to expand...

The thread is about should she be released....

My argument has been consistent and focused because I've continued to argue that yes any terminally ill person ought to be released contigent upon factors which would deem them to be worthy. I've also argued that releasing a dying person is less costly than housing them. My argument has been quite consistent.
 
Sun Devil said:
How do you know? You're assuming. My point is if we are going to argue about cost let's look at cost overtime. What is more costly?

A) A dying woman who has 18 months

or


a guy like Stanley "Tookie" Williams on deathrow for 10 years?
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing about costs.
You're the one that wants to make this about cost.
I don't care if she's only got 18 months to live, she should spend that time in Prison.
 
Sun Devil said:
special circumstance for freedom I believe depends on the condition and I believe in her case if her cancer has metastisized to the point where her death is likely to where she wont serve her full sentence why waste taxpayer money? Treating her, feeding her, medicating her, and showering her?
Click to expand...
Because making special legal exceptions is bad precedent, the foundation of all law. Bad precedent leads to bad cases which leads to bad laws.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I'm not arguing about costs.
You're the one that wants to make this about cost.
I don't care if she's only got 18 months to live, she should spend that time in Prison.
Click to expand...

Hmmm

I guess the others here complaining about her getting medicare and that "taxpayers are paying for that" aren't concerned about cost.

Flatout it's a stupid idea to want to keep a dying person in lockup especially when they wont serve their full sentence. Again like my example if people are stupid enough to put money in a broken machine then it makes sense why people want her to stay locked up.
 
French 75 said:
Because making special legal exceptions is bad precedent, the foundation of all law. Bad precedent leads to bad cases which leads to bad laws.
Click to expand...

But her health is not of her doing as opposed to a drug addict who becomes sick. I think the idea of such laws demonstrates the idea that the perpetrators fate is sealed either way he or she will be free on way or the other.
 
Sun Devil said:
But her health is not of her doing as opposed to a drug addict who becomes sick. I think the idea of such laws demonstrates the idea that the perpetrators fate is sealed either way he or she will be free on way or the other.
Click to expand...
Sure, it's that way now. But 10 years? 20? 50? Precedent is set FOREVER and is incredibly difficult to reverse. If her life or death is inevitable, why shouldn't she spend it in prison?
 
Sun Devil said:
Hmmm

I guess the others here complaining about her getting medicare and that "taxpayers are paying for that" aren't concerned about cost.

Flatout it's a stupid idea to want to keep a dying person in lockup especially when they wont serve their full sentence. Again like my example if people are stupid enough to put money in a broken machine then it makes sense why people want her to stay locked up.
Click to expand...

It appears as if they were making the comments, regarding the "taxpayers paying for it", were to counter the argument that she should be released; because it would cost less.
She's going to get her treatment, whether she's released or stay's incarcerated.

Why is it stupid to keep them locked up, if they can't serve their full sentence?
 
Damocles said:
Just the fact that she knows she is dying is not reason enough to release her. All of us are dying, that doesn't change the consequences of our choices.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you could take the opportunity to tell us poor plebs exactly what she did that warranted a 10 year sentence in the first place? Even if she stayed in prison she wouldn't be in a cell rather in a hospital facility probably outside the prison anyway.

There are a few on here that profess to be Christians, which implies belief in a Christ who espoused compassion and turning the other cheek. All I can see here is the hellfire and brimstone version favoured by fundamentalists.
 
Last edited:
French 75 said:
Sure, it's that way now. But 10 years? 20? 50? Precedent is set FOREVER and is incredibly difficult to reverse. If her life or death is inevitable, why shouldn't she spend it in prison?
Click to expand...

I will respond with a question....

If someone has metastisize cancer what difference would it make if they're free?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
It appears as if they were making the comments, regarding the "taxpayers paying for it", were to counter the argument that she should be released; because it would cost less.
She's going to get her treatment, whether she's released or stay's incarcerated.

Why is it stupid to keep them locked up, if they can't serve their full sentence?
Click to expand...

Look...

She can't be treated didn't you read the article? She can only receive palliative care (Which most terminal cancer patients get).

It's not like she is getting chemo or radiation.
 
Sun Devil said:
I will respond with a question....

If someone has metastisize cancer what difference would it make if they're free?
Click to expand...

Let me explain it to you slowly, since you seem to have a cognitive impairment:

She-was-convicted-of-a-crime-and-received-a-sentence-which-she-should-serve.
 
Sun Devil said:
I will respond with a question....

If someone has metastisize cancer what difference would it make if they're free?
Click to expand...

if x% of the population are dying of cancer at any given point in time and y% of the population are serving sentences they have been given for crimes they have been given, does the fact that a person in group y is also a person in group x, does that mean they have to be treated like everyone in group x and not like everyone in group y?......
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Let me explain it to you slowly, since you seem to have a cognitive impairment:

She-was-convicted-of-a-crime-and-received-a-sentence-which-she-should-serve.
Click to expand...

Ok...Thanks for insulting me. You see, I was very polite with you and actually thought your reasoning was quite stupid and used an example of the broken soda machine to prevent me calling your reasoning stupid, but I sense you want to slang insults. Ok well we'll agree to disagree. Either way, the lady is going to die and it really does not concern me regarding her fate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top