Because in a world of "an eye for an eye" we'd pay more for seeing eye dogs than we do for all other public services combined.
Little Tori's murderers Charged.
- Thread starter #juan
- Start date
Bleeding hearts eh......well....all I can say is... if we ever take a step backwards and reintroduce capital punishment in this Country...When an innocent is found guilty and killed.....I hope you are one of the first ones in line to volenteer for one between the eyes for supporting the murder of said victim when it is found out they were in fact innocent.
Perhaps we should screen the entire population for mental health issues and wipe em' out if they are off kilter. Olsen, Homolka and these two are obvious nut jobs.
Once that is done we'll start on those who have a history of heart disease, MS, CF, or Downs in the family.
Then perhaps we'll go after those who follow odd old religions?
Think of all the money we can save.
It's been done before, why not do it again?
Once that is done we'll start on those who have a history of heart disease, MS, CF, or Downs in the family.
Then perhaps we'll go after those who follow odd old religions?
Think of all the money we can save.
It's been done before, why not do it again?
and, of course, advocating for the death penalty ( wishing that someone would be killed) is not nasty in the least....right?
maybe, if the nut jobs that keep advocating for the death penalty knew that they would be forfeiting their own life when a "mistake" was made...... they wouldn't be so f*cking quick to advocate for the return of the barbaric practice.
I'm all for bringing back the death penalty....In this day in age, with all the technology we have with DNA, forensics, etc, I for one would be ok bringing it back.
If it is proven 100% that the said person/persons, where in fact guilty, with irrefutable proof, then to save us ALL time and money, I say " an eye for an eye".
ALL criminal convictions need to be proven "100%"....beyond a reasonable doubt.... yet we keep incarcerating innocent people that have been found guilty.
but hey....what the hell...... what's a couple of innocents killed..right? Kinda like "collateral damage".:roll:
added: As long as it's not you or yours..right? That would be completely different.
It means forfeiting the "right to life" which can easily snowball to be nearly anyone for nearly any reason in a paranoid society.
I would ask you to GO Back and read what I wrote instead of putting your own spin on what I wrote. I said that the guilt was well proven. Forensic science has come a very very long way in the last 5 or 10 years. So IF someone is proven beyond a shadow of doubt then yes they should get the death penalty in my opinion. Especially those who would snuff out a innocent child like Tori. After all she is the victim here isn't she ?
Or at the very least put them in a prison where they actually have to work for their meals, dental and medical plans and if they want a higher education.
If you were unaware, they will go to psych prison where they do indeed have to work for their keep. It's a whole different ball game in those facilities. They will be given ECT or a chemical labotomy. Is that okay by those who want to kill?
and as I said to SCB.....beyond a reasonable doubt is the way convictions happen already..... I'm just saying.... since you advocate the return of the death penalty, you would have no problem putting your own life on the line when a mistake is made and the wrong person is murdered....right? since you are so sure that science has made it impossible to kill the wrong person.
I didn't say that, you did. I simply don't think 2 nasties make a nicey.
aaahhh One matches a nasty deed by doing the same deed oneself. Brilliant hypocracy.
But that is exactly what the death advocates are advocating.... an eye for an eye..... all I'm saying is that if that's what they want, then they shouldn't have a problem carrying it all the way through...right? If they are so sure that science is infallible and no innocent person will be killed for their own selfish need for vengence, then they really aren't putting anything on the line...right? eye for an eye.
You raise a good point there, and I suppose as vigilant as the system could be made there would be one or two who slip between the cracks BUT I think the innocent (and maybe not so innocent) victims there would be more than compensated for at the other end.
DUH.............. How were you ever even able to learn a simple skill like writing your name? Sorry for my rudeness and I've even been known to tolerate people with an I.Q. of 30 but there's a limit. How do you think it would be compensated? By eliminating or drastically reducing the amount of child killings. Can you understand that or should I send an interpreter?
... and then replied with an implication that the same be applied to the person who wanted capital punishment. It's an attitude thing. Don't worry about it. Attitudes are internally adjustable, not externally.
Just wanted to get it straight junior, before I dumped you into the same shallow end of the gene pool as those that have no problem with killing just for the sake of killing.
and before you object to that statement, it's true when you consider that you have no problem killing someone that's innocent BECAUSE it MAY prevent others deaths.
Personally, I'd prefer to just lock up the guilty for life, rather than kill indescriminatley to sate my lust for revenge.... kinda brings one down to the same level as the guilty, but if you like breathing that air better....go for it.