i am a policitcal conservative, at least a fiscal conservative and sociel moderate.
i support the death penalty, but i agree that our judicial system needs to overhaul how wwe treat criminals to achieve better rehabilitation results.
and of course, withhold the death penalty in cases where there could be doubt.. in mcveigh's case, i believe that he deserves the death penalty.
t very well could however deter a frustrated 14 year old from shooting up his(her) schoolmates or someone else.
I would tend to think that it would have the opposite effect, to be honest. That frustrated 14-year-old, being an impressionable 14-year-old, will learn an important lesson: society solves its problems through the use of violence. Therefore...
i am a policitcal conservative, at least a fiscal conservative and sociel moderate.
i support the death penalty, but i agree that our judicial system needs to overhaul how wwe treat criminals to achieve better rehabilitation results.
and of course, withhold the death penalty in cases where there could be doubt.. in mcveigh's case, i believe that he deserves the death penalty.
Ruth,
What you say makes perfect sense. Rights come with responsibilities. If a person was violating a child's right not to hear such talk, other adults would step in and do something about it.
i am a policitcal conservative, at least a fiscal conservative and sociel moderate.
i support the death penalty, but i agree that our judicial system needs to overhaul how wwe treat criminals to achieve better rehabilitation results.
and of course, withhold the death penalty in cases where there could be doubt.. in mcveigh's case, i believe that he deserves the death penalty.
In jail, there is no life ... just day to day existence hoping you will not be beat up, raped, or have your food taken.
Right, and why the forces of vengeance don't grasp this point is beyond me. This is the way to punish the guy!
i am a policitcal conservative, at least a fiscal conservative and sociel moderate.
i support the death penalty, but i agree that our judicial system needs to overhaul how wwe treat criminals to achieve better rehabilitation results.
and of course, withhold the death penalty in cases where there could be doubt.. in mcveigh's case, i believe that he deserves the death penalty.
Are you saying that it would be ok for an adult to stand before a group of children and spout the "F" word simply because he/she has free speech to do so?
I believe it would be wrong to do so. But I would not make it illegal, or take away that person's free speech rights. But if they chose to exercise those rights in that manner, I would take them aside and explain why it was rude to do it.
Of course, I have no problem with language, and see nothing wrong with children hearing language (they do anyway). But I recognize that some parents do care, and I respect their rights to set limits for their own children. Anyone who deliberately violated those parent's rights I would ask them to stop.
But to make a law about it would go too far, and that is my point. Principles stand, even in extreme circumstances.
i am a policitcal conservative, at least a fiscal conservative and sociel moderate.
i support the death penalty, but i agree that our judicial system needs to overhaul how wwe treat criminals to achieve better rehabilitation results.
and of course, withhold the death penalty in cases where there could be doubt.. in mcveigh's case, i believe that he deserves the death penalty.
Why do social activists necessarily OPPOSE the death penalty for wanton serial killers or someone like McVeigh?
Because when you believe in a principle, you stick to that principle. If you start making exceptions, it's not much of a principle to begin with.
It's sort of like free speech. Everyone is in favor of free speech, but not HIS free speech because his speech is just so icky! Until you can get to the point of defending the right of someone to speak even something you find despicable, it's not much of a principle.
i am a policitcal conservative, at least a fiscal conservative and sociel moderate.
i support the death penalty, but i agree that our judicial system needs to overhaul how wwe treat criminals to achieve better rehabilitation results.
and of course, withhold the death penalty in cases where there could be doubt.. in mcveigh's case, i believe that he deserves the death penalty.
Of course innocents are in danger from people such as yourself. If your attitude taks hold, innoncent people will die.
As for what murder means, yes I was using a loaded word deliberately. I find it defined as:
1. To kill (another human) unlawfully.
2. To kill brutally or inhumanly.
Death penalty in a country outside the U.S., China, Iran, etc. is murder for it would be unlawful. In the U.S., it is lawful in some states, so in those states they are technically mere killers, not murderers. By the second definition, I think they are all murderers, for taking another life is inhumane, in my opinion.
As for fearing an executioner who happened to live next door, I wouldn't. I would know their killing would be directed at others. But I would view what they did for a living as wrong.
i am a policitcal conservative, at least a fiscal conservative and sociel moderate.
i support the death penalty, but i agree that our judicial system needs to overhaul how wwe treat criminals to achieve better rehabilitation results.
and of course, withhold the death penalty in cases where there could be doubt.. in mcveigh's case, i believe that he deserves the death penalty.
Hmm... not a bad idea.. I think they should put McVeigh into the cell with Bubba for a month, and THEN kill him. And not by lethal injection.. that's too easy. Slow hanging would be better, with a bit of torture thrown in for good measure. He's the worst kind of human being-- soulless. They haven't been able to break him down since they got him. I think Bubba would work.
There you go! Couldn't have made the point better myself. Death penalty is not for deterrence, not for safety, but for vengeance. Pure and simple.
what do you know about the new president of the wts, don adams?
(all anecdotes needed)
COMF,
That was the funniest thing I've read on here! Pitch perfect, all the way through, and brilliant.
i am a policitcal conservative, at least a fiscal conservative and sociel moderate.
i support the death penalty, but i agree that our judicial system needs to overhaul how wwe treat criminals to achieve better rehabilitation results.
and of course, withhold the death penalty in cases where there could be doubt.. in mcveigh's case, i believe that he deserves the death penalty.
Thank you for taking the time to comment specifically on what I said. I appreciate that.
huh? Most of them, I would say. I'm really questioning where you are coming from here. We humans do have quite an ability to think, even in the heat of the moment. And we do. Those of us who don't, won't, or can't, just are not safe to have walking around in society.No, human nature is to NOT think of the consequences in the heat of the moment. That's quit typical, actually. Human psychology is known in this area.
So if a mom whose child was blown to icky bits in the OKC bombing, revenged her childs death, you would consider her just as much a force of evil as McVeigh? I'm not saying it would be right, but you would consider her the same level of scum as McVeigh? Do I have this right from your statement above?No, for her motives would be different (and even understandable). But her methods would be identical. He used force. She used force. Different motives, same methods.
Who gives a flying f*** what he wants of doesn't want. It matters not, to this discussion or any discussion beyond his last meal. Before the bombing, it would have had great relevance to any associated with him. He lost that privilege.Oh, I thought we were talking about deterrence? With deterrence, taking into consideration what the criminal does or does not want comes into the picture. In fact, that's the whole picture of deterrence! If McVeigh has to suffer year after weary year, it reminds other would-be revolutionaries that they won't get a glorious finish as a martyr, but will slowly be forgetten to the rubbish-heap of history.
No. And why should it? No great epiphany there. Nothing particularly "revolutionary" about blowing up innocents.On the contrary, it is a typical by-product of war. And he got this issue into the minds of millions of persons as a result. People who had never heard of these militia elements now heard of them.
I'm profoundly sorry you see me that way. You are wrong, as innocents are not in danger from me.It was a harsh thing for me to say, but I was quite upset at your words. However, innocents are very much in danger from you, for you want to murder all murderers. Since there are persons on death row who actually are innocent, they are innocents in danger from people such as yourself. Another reason against the death penalty.
Just hope you are never accidentally and falsely accused of murder, or else you may have cause to rethink your stance on taking life when life is taken.
i am a policitcal conservative, at least a fiscal conservative and sociel moderate.
i support the death penalty, but i agree that our judicial system needs to overhaul how wwe treat criminals to achieve better rehabilitation results.
and of course, withhold the death penalty in cases where there could be doubt.. in mcveigh's case, i believe that he deserves the death penalty.
And this "Death penalty does not deter" stuff??? Yes it does. The killer will not kill again. (they like to do that you know, or had you not noticed?)
Don't be snide; stick to the issues. Death penalty does not deter, for crime rates remain unaffected. You feel it does deter, provide evidence. As for the killer not killing again, so will locking him up for life serve that purpose. McVeigh will never kill again, regardless of whether or not he is killed. Therefore the death penalty adds nothing to the deterrence question.
That, my friend, is the purest form of deterence. People are less likely to kill if they know they will not get away with it. Am I saying no one will ever kill knowing that? No, I am not saying that. But it does mitigate.I already pointed out why I feel that reasoning is incorrect. Do you have a reason for disagreeing?
Not that anyone would really know. The death penalty has not really been practiced in a long, long time, here in America. One execution for every so thousand murders (don't know the real ratio), does not a death penalty make.I can't believe you just said that! Never mind, I have nothing to discuss with you if your idea is that we need to kill a whole bunch more people before we can see how this works out. You are no different from the murderers; only your motive changes.
