I wonder how that plays out if a person murders anotherto save his life or someone else's. Then murder is ok? "No killing allowed. Except for when defending one's own life, cops feel threatened by staplers, etc......" So much for "absolutes".
It's time to bring the death penalty back!
- Thread starter Simpleton
- Start date
You are right, polls are not always accurate. However, they do accurately represent the public sentiment most of the time. We do get a nasty surprise once in a while though. I remember the latest being Obama losing the New Hampshire primary to Hillary, when all the polls were predicting a comfortable (a double digit) win for him.
Polling is a statistical science, so while being correct most of the time; they are bound to be wrong once in a while. Indeed, when describing the accuracy of any poll, they will say that the poll is accurate within (say) 3%, 19 times out of 20.
But one wrong poll here and there (which statistics tells us is bound to happen) does not invalidate the entire polling science.
I this respect, I remember during the last presidential election, CNN used to report ‘the poll of polls’, which turned out to be remarkable accurate. Not only the poll of polls predicted the winner accurately (Obama by 7%), but it also predicted the results in battleground states (Ohio, Virginia, Florida) etc. along with correctly predicting the margin of victory in those states.
I dont know where i stand when it comes to the death penalty. One of my friends who went to work in Alberta when it was booming killed someone in the 2nd degree. I would not wish the death penalty on him...
then you read about those creepy sick individuals who abduct little children, or serial killers and sometimes i feel that they should be put down....
I dont know
then you read about those creepy sick individuals who abduct little children, or serial killers and sometimes i feel that they should be put down....
I dont know
There is all the difference in the world between someone like your friend (2nd degree murder) and heinous bastards like Manson, Olson, Homolka and a few others. I would only propose the death penalty for the most depraved of the depraved when they is ironclad evidence.
Probably not, it doesn't bring back the victims, for sure, but it does ensure the bastards don't reoffend and it does ensure we are not throwing good money after bad supporting them.
That is how it usually works out, Johnnny. It is all very well to support death penalty in the abstract, as long as nobody you know is executed. When it comes to executing somebody they know (or even more important), somebody they love), the support for death penalty usually evaporates.
Which supports my contention that every person on the planet is hypocritical to SOME degree.
Years ago, a guy I knew (not a friend) assaulted a kid in a school playground. He was sent to reform school. When he got out he broke into a house and murdered a senior as he was robbing her. He was sentenced to death, later commuted to life in prison. While in prison he murdered a guard who happened to be the father of a friend of mine. Once again sentenced to life in prison. Eventually he hung himself in his cell.
If the first sentence had been carried out, one life would have been saved. That is why I support the death penalty.
I think you are flogging a "dead horse" on this issue, people who are against capital punishment seem to think the life of the criminal is more important than victim's life even when the victim is a child. We know from past experience that convicted murderers in the context of sexual crimes will reoffend. I'd sure like to know whose life is less important than Clifford Olson's.
I think you're phucking a dead horse in the azz on this issue.
I don't think anyone has claimed that the life of a criminal is more important than a victim's life. Killing the criminal doesn't magically bring the victim back to life; if it did, there would be a whole different opinion on this matter.
You don't read too good do you? (post 487). Just as important it does save the lives of those that he snufffs out when he reoffends.
No question about it - if the murderer is put to death, he/she won't be able to do it again. That is a fact. Stated that way, it has nothing to do with revenge, and everything to do with prevention.
If the issue could be thought through, one point at a time, it might make more sense. However, you immediately encounter the "Yeah, but I'm against the death penalty because..." opinions that prevent the discussion from going any further.
Might be interesting to see a 'scorecard' on this...at least it would show all the points for and against, and the reasons for each one. The point you're raising on prevention of future murders is a valid one, in my opinion.
You're still not reading too good. Did I not say we should execute the likes of Manson, Olson and Homolka. And yes incidentally I think if given the chance they would kill again, which is just an added reason for executing them. Don't see what's so hard about that concept to understand. Do you want me to draw you a map?
You wisdom is evident again. Yes I guess it would be a dead heat as long as the nay sayers simply say they don't believe in it and I say I don't believe in it either with the exception of a very few cases, but then when I add that I feel the lives I'm trying to save are more valuable than the ones they are trying to save, at which point I win.
The only reason I can see for the death penalty would be so the SOB would never do it again. Otherwise I'd be much happier if these f-ups would spend the rest of their lives in absolute misery. Unfortunately judges and others seem to have too much mercy for perps and not enough for the families of victims.
Speaking of polls, see what happens when you go on vacation. Democrats lose in Mass. of all places. Polling science can never take into account people getting angry with the goverment. Cannot factor in the pocketbook.