NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.local10.com/news/14344768/detail.html

MIAMI -- A judge sentenced a man to death Monday, nearly nine years after he left a 5-year-old girl to be eaten alive by alligators in the Everglades and tried to kill her mother.

Harrel Franklin Braddy, 58, attacked Shandelle Maycock and daughter Quatisha after he was released early from prison in another case for good behavior. He was convicted in July of first-degree murder, attempted murder, kidnapping, attempted escape and other charges.

Judge Leonard E. Glick also sentenced Braddy to three consecutive life terms on the kidnapping and burglary with an assault charges. He also got 30 years in prison on the attempted murder of Shandelle, 15 years on child neglect causing great bodily harm and five years on attempted escape.


Prosecutors said Braddy tossed Maycock in the trunk of his car in 1998 and drove her to a remote sugarcane field, choked her to unconsciousness and left her to die. She never saw her child again.

Braddy drove the girl to a section of Interstate 75 in the Everglades known as Alligator Alley and dropped her in the water beside the road, prosecutors said. She was alive when alligators bit her on the head and stomach, a medical examiner said.

Authorities found the girl's body two days later, her left arm missing and her skull crushed, prosecutors said. Maycock woke up bleeding and disoriented, but managed to flag down help.

Braddy's attorney, G.P. Della Fera, said Braddy knew Maycock from his involvement in church outreach programs.

"I'm saddened for both families," Della Fera said.

The case took so long because Braddy repeatedly fired his lawyers and represented himself in court sometimes.

Maycock sobbed during the initial sentencing as she told jurors how her life without her only child would never be the same. The little girl she nicknamed Candy had just started kindergarten and loved writing her name and singing along with the church choir.

Prosecutor Abbe Rifkin said Braddy got the appropriate sentence.

"Due to his own horrific actions, Harrel Braddy has caused a lot of pain to a lot of people, including the people who loved him and cared for him," Rifkin said in an e-mail. "The state is grateful that Quatisha's small voice was finally heard, and that the defendant received the sentence he so rightfully earned."

Braddy had been out of prison for a little over a year before the 1998 kidnapping. He was released early after serving 13 years of a 30-year sentence for several charges including attempted murder.

He wore an electric shock device and knee brace, making it difficult for him to bend his knee during the sentencing. The courtroom was filled with extra police officers, all measures taken after Braddy escaped from the courthouse in 1984 when he choked a Miami-Dade County corrections officer.

During two other escapes that year, Braddy kidnapped and robbed an assistant pastor and an elderly couple. At one point Braddy was on the run for more than a month before authorities found him in Georgia.

After he was arrested for kidnapping the Maycocks, he tried to escape from the interrogation room by bending an air conditioning grate.

An approapriate sentence indeed. Dumping a 5 year old girl alive into a swamp infested with alligators should have warranted a more drastic sentence in my opinion.

This also raises the question on the death penalty: When the crime is as fucked up as this, shouldn't the offender be sentenced to death? Even worse? How can you morally defend the right to life of this man?

Never confuse opposition to the death penalty with nessecarily being "for" the defendant in any particular case.

http://www.local10.com/news/14344768/detail.html



An approapriate sentence indeed. Dumping a 5 year old girl alive into a swamp infested with alligators should have warranted a more drastic sentence in my opinion.

This also raises the question on the death penalty: When the crime is as fucked up as this, shouldn't the offender be sentenced to death? Even worse? How can you morally defend the right to life of this man?

Simple economics, it's cheaper to house him for the rest of his life than it is to fight the barrage of appeals that are sure to come. Plus of course that anyone can be redeemed.

http://www.local10.com/news/14344768/detail.html



An approapriate sentence indeed. Dumping a 5 year old girl alive into a swamp infested with alligators should have warranted a more drastic sentence in my opinion.

This also raises the question on the death penalty: When the crime is as fucked up as this, shouldn't the offender be sentenced to death? Even worse? How can you morally defend the right to life of this man?

1- Death penalty doesn't work unless we can be 100% sure that said person committed said crime.

2- If it's about revenge, keeping the person in jail for the rest of their lives and making the person work to pay for its stay works much better.

How can you morally defend the right to life of this man?

Two words: Medical experimentation. Rather than test experiemntal drugs and products on animals, we ought to test them on assholes like this. Of course, then we'd have to change our warning labels to read "WARNING: This product has been known to cause cancer in asshole criminals."

You simply can not. A person like this should be executed so that no inocent people have to worry about him ever again.

http://www.local10.com/news/14344768/detail.html



An approapriate sentence indeed. Dumping a 5 year old girl alive into a swamp infested with alligators should have warranted a more drastic sentence in my opinion.

This also raises the question on the death penalty: When the crime is as fucked up as this, shouldn't the offender be sentenced to death? Even worse? How can you morally defend the right to life of this man?

I don't agree with the death penalty for fiscal reasons (it costs more to put a person to death than to house them for the rest of their life), and the fact that the execution is so far detached (time-wise) from the sentencing.

Besides, when the other convicts find out what he did (especially the way he killed the little 5 year old girl), they'll make the rest of his life a living hell.

Men like that make supporting the death penalty awfully easy. *nod*

I don't agree with the death penalty for fiscal reasons (it costs more to put a person to death than to house them for the rest of their life), and the fact that the execution is so far detached (time-wise) from the sentencing.

Both of the above reasons are easy to fix.

only in America :rolleyes: (the death sentence thing, I'm sure children have been fed to alligators at some point in this cloudy land)

I say we put him on an extensive rehabilitation and psychoanalysis* that will teach him real good! ;)

*looking at the guys history you would think it would of been mentioned in the "article"

edit: no I refuse to take part in lynching threads there just silly and so late 2006

Both of the above reasons are easy to fix.

Not without considerably higher risk of executing the innocent.

This man killed, so you want to kill him. Why do you think you have the moral high ground?

Do YOU have the moral high ground to say we CAN'T make absolutly sure he can NEVER harm inocent people again???

In fact you arnt even a U.S citizen so you have no right whatsoever in talking about this.

http://www.local10.com/news/14344768/detail.html



An approapriate sentence indeed. Dumping a 5 year old girl alive into a swamp infested with alligators should have warranted a more drastic sentence in my opinion.

This also raises the question on the death penalty: When the crime is as fucked up as this, shouldn't the offender be sentenced to death? Even worse? How can you morally defend the right to life of this man?

No, Vuhifellian. The very nature of his crime DEMANDS we keep him alive. How can we answer the death of sentient life with more death? How can we punish the extinguishing of a precious life with another precious life?

No...once that life is gone, it's gone, and therefore it must be preserved. He must have a chance to truly be punished and to rehabilitate, to understand his crime and to repent, as it were, for it. Given that I would gladly rehabilitate Hitler himself if given the chance, I'm hardly going to balk at trying to rehabilitate this man.

Capital punishment is wrong, period. It doesn't matter who you are, what you've done, why you did it...being killed because you did something is, in my eyes, nothing but state-sponsored murder.

In fact you arnt even a U.S citizen so you have no right whatsoever in talking about this.

How is that? Non-Us citizens can't debate Capital Punishment?

In fact you arnt even a U.S citizen so you have no right whatsoever in talking about this.

Heh. National origin never stopped anyone on this forum ever. Nor should it.

Do YOU have the moral high ground to say we CAN'T make absolutly sure he can NEVER harm inocent people again???

In fact you arnt even a U.S citizen so you have no right whatsoever in talking about this.

My citizenship means nothing when it comes to state sanctioned murder. Murder is murder. He murders, you murder him. What is the difference?

Do YOU have the moral high ground to say we CAN'T make absolutly sure he can NEVER harm inocent people again???

yeah...you don't really understand moral high grounds do you :p

In fact you arnt even a U.S citizen so you have no right whatsoever in talking about this.

so the fact that this is jolt.co.uk means nothing to you?

in fact how about you go try making an argument now other than "na na not listening"

This man killed, so you want to kill him. Why do you think you have the moral high ground?

Because "kill" is not a crime. Murder is.

Perhaps you could tell me the difference between judicial execution of a murderer, and feeding five-year old girls to alligators.

If you can't see the difference then there's nothing more to be said.

This is just a sad situation on all accounts. The guy is obviously mentally disturbed; no sane person would do this. I'm sure if he had a moment of lucidity while committing the crimes he'd have stopped, or at least tried to, but alas he is ill. Are his crimes his fault? Or nature's fault? Or his mother's fault for doing H while he was in the womb? I don't have any idea. But I do know that murdering a man for a crime he had no real choice in is wrong.

Who the fuck names their kid "Quatisha"?!

This is just a sad situation on all accounts. The guy is obviously mentally disturbed; no sane person would do this. I'm sure if he had a moment of lucidity while committing the crimes he'd have stopped, or at least tried to, but alas he is ill. Are his crimes his fault? Or nature's fault? Or his mother's fault for doing H while he was in the womb? I don't have any idea. But I do know that murdering a man for a crime he had no real choice in is wrong.
Exactly. He needs help, rehabilitation, whatever form that must take. (That does not involve some sort of harm to him.)

Who the fuck names their kid "Quatisha"?!
I would. That's an awesome name.

Exactly. He needs help, rehabilitation, whatever form that must take. (That does not involve some sort of harm to him.)


I would. That's an awesome name.

Not as awesome as !xobile (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj-1kp777NM) :)

When the crime is as fucked up as this, shouldn't the offender be sentenced to death?

No.

This is just a sad situation on all accounts. The guy is obviously mentally disturbed; no sane person would do this.

My fat hairy white ass.

He and his defense didn't even go for an insanity plea. Certainly, he wasn't judged mentally unfit. Was he mentally "disturbed?" Yes, one can say that all violent criminals are to an extent. One might even say that a majority of US Americans are. But that's no excuse.

He wasn't legally insane, and there is no other relevant definition of sanity or insanity.

I'm sure if he had a moment of lucidity while committing the crimes he'd have stopped, or at least tried to, but alas he is ill.

Your optimistic appraisal of human nature is not evidence in support of this conclusion.

Are his crimes his fault? Or nature's fault? Or his mother's fault for doing H while he was in the womb? I don't have any idea. But I do know that murdering a man for a crime he had no real choice in is wrong.

This is seriously bothering me. When did "Execution is Murder" become an actual argument? Same time "circumcision is child abuse," and "abortion is murder," and "Islam is terrorism," I'd guess? Get a real argument already.

Yes we definitly wan't to preserve his PRECIOUS life:rolleyes:

Yes we definitly want to preserve his PRECIOUS life:rolleyes:

Because "kill" is not a crime. Murder is.

A large irrelevancy as a matter of morals. Murder is by definition an intentional, illegal killing of a person. There are circumstances in which killing a person is legal. Self defense, defense of others, military action, and judicial execution are the main ones.

The state is the entity that defines what is a legal killing and what is an illegal killing. There's not some magical property that makes the state filling a man's veins with deadly chemicals not murder, but the same man doing it to someone else is. There is no moral difference, merely the state defining its actions as legal.

This man killed, so you want to kill him. Why do you think you have the moral high ground?

Because not all killing is morally equivalent.

It is not OK to kill human beings.

It is OK to kill a non-human being.

By killing a human being, the individual doing the killing renounces his own humanity. Since he is no longer a human being, killing him is perfectly acceptable.

A large irrelevancy as a matter of morals. Murder is by definition an intentional, illegal killing of a person. There are circumstances in which killing a person is legal. Self defense, defense of others, military action, and judicial execution are the main ones.

The state is the entity that defines what is a legal killing and what is an illegal killing. There's not some magical property that makes the state filling a man's veins with deadly chemicals not murder, but the same man doing it to someone else is. There is no moral difference, merely the state defining its actions as legal.

Really. So while The State would agree that if I shot someone who tried to (for example) rape me it's Self Defense, you with your much less biased attitude would more accurately say that I am a Murderer, no?

Well, I hope not. But it wouldn't surprise me. Apparently killing is murder always according to some people.

No you do not have to be U.S citizen to debate executution. BUT, you do NOT have the right to tell us what to do with our murderers. If you want all the killers running free in your country be my guest.

No, Vuhifellian. The very nature of his crime DEMANDS we keep him alive. How can we answer the death of sentient life with more death? How can we punish the extinguishing of a precious life with another precious life?
Because there's nothing precious about his life.

Capital punishment is wrong, period.
No, it's not.

It doesn't matter who you are, what you've done, why you did it...being killed because you did something is, in my eyes, nothing but state-sponsored murder.

Then you are wrong. You are a barbarian who opposes civilization.

In fact you arnt even a U.S citizen so you have no right whatsoever in talking about this.

Oh, STFU. I'm not the guy you were responding to, I don't have the faintest idea if he's a US citizen. Do you?

Anyway, I am a US citizen, and I'm opposed to the death penalty, even in this case. This is not out of any sort of defence for his life, or caring for the criminal. This is for a very simple and practical reason: while our judicial system can make mistakes, I do not want to dish out any punishments that are irreversible.

If one innocent person could be killed by the death penalty, I don't want it. I want to be sure that if we accidentally sentence an innocent person, the mistake can be reversed - once you've killed them, you can't. Well, I can't, and I doubt you can either, unless you've made some particularly incredible breakthrough in medical science.

This particular case is horrific, and it is likely that he deserves to die, but I will stand by the principle that I oppose it in all cases - I'm not getting onto the slippery slope of degrees of evil.

Really. So while The State would agree that if I shot someone who tried to (for example) rape me it's Self Defense, you with your much less biased attitude would more accurately say that I am a Murderer, no?

Well, let's see. I defined murder as the intentional, illegal killing of a person, right?

And your act would be self defense, therefore, it would not be illegal.

And since I already went through the trouble of defining murder as the intentional, illegal killing of a person, and you just noted your actions would not be illegal, I am unsure how you would conclude that I would say this.

In fact, common sense dictates that since I went through the trouble of defining murder as the intentional illegal slaying of a person, I most certainly would not define your legal actions as murder. So I'm unsure how you concluded as such.

Murder is a legal term of art. It means what it means and only what it means. And it does not mean an intentional, legal slaying.

Now whether your actions are morally the same as the actions of the man as he committed this murder or the state's when it executes him is entirely divorced from the question as to whether they are legally the same

Then you are wrong. You are a barbarian who opposes civilization.

Leave us barbarians out of this. :p

There is no moral difference, merely the state defining its actions as legal.

There certainly is.

You're correct in that it does not matter what the state classifies it as.

But there is still a difference, and it is inherent to the act--it is dependent upon the reason for it.

Even if it were illegal to kill in self-defense, it would still be morally right.

Even if capital punishment for murderers, rapists, burglars, thieves, muggers, vandals, and trespassers were abolished, it would still be morally right.

You are correct that morality is independent of state decree. You are incorrect in your assessment of morality itself.

One, it said he was from scotland unless he was LYING. Two, you have every right to disagree and try to change it if indeed you are a U.S citizen.

while our judicial system can make mistakes, I do not want to dish out any punishments that are irreversible.


Therefore, you are against imprisonment?

Or do you honestly think that going to prison is "reversible" simply because you can come out again? Yeah, that 20 years of life - no big deal. Ass-raped in the shower - reversible. Knifed to death - reversible.

He and his defense didn't even go for an insanity plea. Certainly, he wasn't judged mentally unfit. Was he mentally "disturbed?" Yes, one can say that all violent criminals are to an extent. One might even say that a majority of US Americans are. But that's no excuse.

he is a repeat violent offender who decided it would be good to represent himself

these are the signs of a man in need of serious help

He wasn't legally insane, and there is no other relevant definition of sanity or insanity.

article really doesn't speak on this issue (and seeing as how it appears a tad one sided it would of if it could)

Your optimistic appraisal of human nature is not evidence in support of this conclusion.

its incredibly hard to do some of the things he did, go out and try and punch a girl odds are you won't be able to

its a good little experiment :)

This is seriously bothering me. When did "Execution is Murder" become an actual argument? Same time "circumcision is child abuse," and "abortion is murder," and "Islam is terrorism," I'd guess? Get a real argument already.

so what your saying is putting a man to death isn't actually murder now?

you do know that given NSG's view on the state, what the government says is legal killing doesn't really mean a thing here

Yes we definitly wan't to preserve his PRECIOUS life:rolleyes:

nice to see you coming round to the correct answer

There's really no need for the state to issue the death penalty. Putting him in the general population and telling them he fed a little girl to gators is pretty much the same thing as "We sentence you to be anally raped multiple times a day until you die when you break every bone in your body falling out of bed while mysteriously not waking your cell mate." They really don't like child rapists or murderers on the inside.

This is for a very simple and practical reason: while our judicial system can make mistakes, I do not want to dish out any punishments that are irreversible.

That is a valid reason for opposing the death penalty in practice, and I tend to agree with you.

But there's nothing wrong with it in principle. If that hurdle could be overcome, clear the way!

Well, let's see. I defined murder as the intentional, illegal killing of a person, right?

And your act would be self defense, therefore, it would not be illegal.

And since I already went through the trouble of defining murder as the intentional, illegal killing of a person, and you just noted your actions would not be illegal, I am unsure how you would conclude that I would say this.

In fact, common sense dictates that since I went through the trouble of defining murder as the intentional illegal slaying of a person, I most certainly would not define your legal actions as murder. So I'm unsure how you concluded as such.

I didn't.

But as is clearly in evidence, what words actually MEAN seems to have little weight in this argument. Apparently, execution is murder simply because some people say it is. In much the same way abortion is murder. Some people say it is.

these are the signs of a man in need of serious help

Mental state is irrelevant.

All that matters is whether or not he did it.

If he did, he should be executed, period, end of story.

he is a repeat violent offender who decided it would be good to represent himself

these are the signs of a man in need of serious help


Representing yourself only makes you a fool, not insane.

so what your saying is putting a man to death isn't actually murder now?

Yes. That is exactly what I'm saying.

Look, if you're going to say that execution is murder, you may as well say that imprisonment is kidnapping, and fines are robbery. I mean why call things what they actually are when there's a word that, however inaccurate it may be, sounds a whole lot NASTIER for it?

you do know that given NSG's view on the state, what the government says is legal killing doesn't really mean a thing here

I don't know what you're on about with "NSG's view of the state" nor do I really care. Legal punishment is not a criminal act.

By killing a human being, the individual doing the killing renounces his own humanity. Since he is no longer a human being, killing him is perfectly acceptable.

so what your saying is after your commit murder you form a cocoon and emerge a beautiful (yet sinister) butterfly?

your ideas on human biology intrigue me

Two, you have every right to disagree and try to change it if indeed you are a U.S citizen.

or not if lets say the U.N tells you so

Mental state is irrelevant.

All that matters is whether or not he did it.

If he did, he should be executed, period, end of story.

hear that folks page 3 and we already have someone advocating the killing of the mentally ill

The only other alternative to execution i would suport is a life sentence of solitary confinment. No contact with anyone ever, like they did with that terrorist guy.

Therefore, you are against imprisonment?

Or do you honestly think that going to prison is "reversible" simply because you can come out again? Yeah, that 20 years of life - no big deal. Ass-raped in the shower - reversible. Knifed to death - reversible.

No, I'm perfectly aware that prison isn't completely reversible. I reckon work should be done to improve prison quality. But I still stand against the death penalty on being totally irreversible.

I'm also opposed to the death penalty on the grounds that I don't feel it's the place of the state to decide under what circumstances anyone should be killed. This is mostly my general distrust of government though.

Judging from the US standpoint I did say throw him in a maximum security isolation cell for the rest of his life. Here's why

Pros to keeping him alive
it's cheaper
the person is alive if new evidence suggest he didn't do it
it's a more powerful punishment

As far as "he might hurt another innocent person" goes, that wouldn't happen if you keep him jailed for life.

It's also statistically proven that the capital punishment does not lower crime in any way.

I am against rehabilitate in this particular situation. I think we should spend the resources on helping the victim's family members move on rather than wasting it on someone who is not coming out to society ever again. And let's face it, rehabs doesn't work in most of these extreme cases. It's be statistically proven that those people come out of jail goes right back in there for doing the same thing.

hear that folks page 3 and we already have someone advocating the killing of the mentally ill

How disingenuous. There are plenty of offensive things to gather from what Lucy here is saying, and yet you chose to deliberately misrepresent his/her viewpoint by applying it to YOUR own conclusion (that he is mentally ill) and then by generalizing (by claiming that Lucy actually argued that mentally ill people should be all executed).

Ugh.

Needless to say, your own interpretation that the guy is mentally ill is not relevant. Even if you were a criminal psychologist and could make a diagnosis, you wouldn't be able to based on the information given and without even meeting the guy.

Representing yourself only makes you a fool, not insane.

pointing out indicators here, I have no reports to paw over

Yes. That is exactly what I'm saying.

so you agree that odds are no examination was taken?

Look, if you're going to say that execution is murder, you may as well say that imprisonment is kidnapping, and fines are robbery. I mean why call things what they actually are when there's a word that, however inaccurate it may be, sounds a whole lot NASTIER for it?

all those examples are true if your morally opposed to such things

I don't know what you're on about with "NSG's view of the state" nor do I really care. Legal punishment is not a criminal act.

who said anything about it being a criminal act :confused:

"or not if lets say the U.N tells you so" I never liked the U.N.

so you agree that odds are no examination was taken?


No. How did you gather that from what I posted?

all those examples are true if your morally opposed to such things

Wrong. Abortion doesn't become murder simply because I am opposed to it. (And I'm not.)

who said anything about it being a criminal act :confused:

Were you unaware that "murder" is a criminal act?

No you do not have to be U.S citizen to debate executution. BUT, you do NOT have the right to tell us what to do with our murderers. If you want all the killers running free in your country be my guest.

What is the difference between debating and telling you how we would prefer things were done in the US?

The only one to change things are US authorities but that doesn't mean I can't make my feelings clear

so what your saying is after your commit murder you form a cocoon and emerge a beautiful (yet sinister) butterfly?

your ideas on human biology intrigue me
There's more to being human than mere biology.

hear that folks page 3 and we already have someone advocating the killing of the mentally ill

Only if they commit crimes.

They're no better or worse than anyone else. Why should they be treated any differently?

That is the thing i love about you socialist liberals. You ALWAYS suport abortion NEVER suport the death penalty.You also seem to hate israel.

Sorry i forgot to mention your apeasment policy to the terrorist just like some brits in WW2 were to hitler.

That is the thing i love about you socialist liberals. You ALWAYS suport abortion NEVER suport the death penalty

As they are very different cases

Never confuse opposition to the death penalty with nessecarily being "for" the defendant in any particular case.Right, because then you are "for" all defendants in all cases.

I don't know the numbers involved, but it seems to me that someone that following through with a death sentence would be cheaper. Is it the legal battles to reverse the ruling, or another/myriad of possiblities?

"As they are very different cases" An inocent baby who can feel pain. A killer. Yea they are different cases.

"As they are very different cases" An inocent baby who can feel pain. A killer. Yea they are different cases.

"As they are very different cases" An inocent baby who can feel pain. A killer. Yea they are different cases.

Sorry for double post.

My citizenship means nothing when it comes to state sanctioned murder. Murder is murder. He murders, you murder him. What is the difference?
He made the world a worse by killing someone, the executioner makes it better by killing the killer.

"As they are very different cases" An inocent baby who can feel pain. A killer. Yea they are different cases.

I'm not going to get into this as it's a thread jack waiting to happen but the bolded part is your opinion not everyones

It is not OK to kill human beings.Why? Are humans special?

As i said earlier you have no RIGHT too deside wether or not the U.S has the death penalty. Yes you can have your opinion. Just like I think it is wrong to execute non murderers like china and iran(who hung some gays resently). But that does not mean I have the RIGHT to tell them to stop or deside for them.

As i said earlier you have no RIGHT too deside wether or not the U.S has the death penalty. Yes you can have your opinion. Just like I think it is wrong to execute non murderers like china and iran(who hung some gays resently). But that does not mean I have the RIGHT to tell them to stop or deside for them.

You and I do have the right to tell them to stop just as they have the right to ignore us

Why? Are humans special?

Yes.

Humans are beings that rely on rational thinking, rather than brute force, to deal with other human beings (which is why murderers are no longer human: they have demonstrated that they prefer to deal with others by brute force).

A human being only resorts to brute force when dealing with creatures who are not capable of being persuaded by reason: creatures such as murderers, aggressive nations, bears, crabgrass, my POS minivan, etc.

As i said earlier you have no RIGHT too deside wether or not the U.S has the death penalty. Yes you can have your opinion. Just like I think it is wrong to execute non murderers like china and iran(who hung some gays resently). But that does not mean I have the RIGHT to tell them to stop or deside for them.Who gives a wet fart for what rights you have or think to have? This is a forum and everyone can comment on the the thread issues as (s)he wishes to. And if someone addresses the US as such then that's that person's business and not yours.

You and I do have the right to tell them to stop just as they have the right to ignore us If that were true then whoever had might would be right. Hitler had might he was not right. No ryme intented.

Yes.

Humans are beings that rely on rational thinking, rather than brute force, to deal with other human beings (which is why murderers are no longer human: they have demonstrated that they prefer to deal with others by brute force).

A human being only resorts to brute force when dealing with creatures who are not capable of being persuaded by reason: creatures such as murderers, aggressive nations, bears, crabgrass, my POS minivan, etc.
what?

If that were true then whoever had might would be right. Hitler had might he was not right. No ryme intented.

Right (as opposed to wrong) is not the same as having "Rights"

Humans are beings that rely on rational thinking, rather than brute force, to deal with other human beings (which is why murderers are no longer human: they have demonstrated that they prefer to deal with others by brute force).


Hang (as it were) on - that would apply to all violent criminals.

Well i can only be gratefull that non of you lunatics make world or U.S policy. We would be over run with Criminals. The taxpayers would be WAY over burdened with the taxes to keep the rehabilitaion programs and prisons running.

That is correct, and I have alluded to that fact in an earlier post in this thread; I was merely providing a single example.

Well i can only be gratefull that non of you lunatics make world or U.S policy. We would be over run with Criminals. The taxpayers would be WAY over burdened with the taxes to keep the rehabilitaion programs and prisons running.

I'm grateful that no-one on NSG is in government as well :p

Wow, what a scumbag. He should fry on the electric chair, or be hung. Drugs are too good for this asshole.

Now i admit that just blidly executing people is wrong and stupid. China, Iran, North Korea. But just letting people get away with MURDER?! I know you will say that prison will work or let's rehabilitate them. But honestly would you live next to a "rehabilitated" criminal?

Well i can only be gratefull that non of you lunatics make world or U.S policy. We would be over run with Criminals. The taxpayers would be WAY over burdened with the taxes to keep the rehabilitaion programs and prisons running.Ahem, the US is currently ruled by a lunatic.

Both of the above reasons are easy to fix.

The problem is, the reason a person on death row is allowed so many automatic appeals (what causes the extra costs and delays) is to make sure that the state got the right person.

That is the thing i love about you socialist liberals. You ALWAYS suport abortion NEVER suport the death penalty.You also seem to hate israel.

I've got the fire, who wants to get the acid?

If a criminal killed somone close to you and you DID NOT want them executed. I would be a little more open to your point of view.

Too all those against the death penalty because they consider it revenge: so what? What's wrong with revenge? Have you ever heard blood law? If someone kills one of your family, that person dies. Simple as that.

That is the thing i love about you socialist liberals. You ALWAYS suport abortion NEVER suport the death penalty.You also seem to hate israel.

Oh dear. Side debate here, but I can't help it.

I oppose the death penalty because it is irreversible and because I don't feel the state should have a right to order somebody's death.

I do not oppose abortion because banning abortion doesn't make much of a difference to the number of abortions carried out, but does make a large difference to the survival rate of the mother. And if you now say "People who kill their babies should die for it." So help me, I'll probably get banned if I'm not sensible enough to put you on ignore for the rest of the time you're on NS.

I don't hate Israel. I don't support ignoring the bad stuff they do because they're not 'towelheads' or anything like that.

I don't support pacifying terrorism. I do support civil rights, and I don't support invading random countries (Echelon and Iraq, respectively), and I don't think the 'War on Terror' is a good reason to commit such acts. We won the Cold War by refusing to give up our freedoms. Those of us in the UK defeated the IRA by refusing to be cowed. How does hiding in a corner and spying on everyone help us beat the terrorists? We achieve their aims for them.

A free society must be ready to fight with one hand tied behind it's back, because it is free. It must be willing to pay the occasional life that could have been avoided by total surveillance, because it is free. It must be willing to stand up and say "Here we are, do your worst, we aren't giving up our freedoms" to those who would attack it, because that is what it means to be free!

I do not oppose abortion because banning abortion doesn't make much of a difference to the number of abortions carried out, but does make a large difference to the survival rate of the mother. And if you now say "People who kill their babies should die for it." So help me, I'll probably get banned if I'm not sensible enough to put you on ignore for the rest of the time you're on NS.

Did I say that mothers who commit abortions should die? My my you are putting words in my mouth. Nice debating.:rolleyes:

Now i admit that just blidly executing people is wrong and stupid. China, Iran, North Korea. But just letting people get away with MURDER?! I know you will say that prison will work or let's rehabilitate them. But honestly would you live next to a "rehabilitated" criminal?

I met a murderer, a couple of years ago. He and his brother did an armed robbery in north London, the whole thing went wrong, they shot two security guards. He'd done 20 years for it, his brother was still inside. I met him shortly after he got let out - he was staying in a bail hostel near here and we got talking.

I don't know if he was 'rehabilitated' - I doubt he was ever 'habilitated' in the first place. I don't think you could honestly say he'd paid his debt to society either... I suspect the victims' families would say he hadn't. But I wouldn't wish him dead. Strange stuff, really.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/10/fetus.stolen.ap/index.html
What is deathworthy?

I don't know if he was 'rehabilitated' - I doubt he was ever 'habilitated' in the first place.

Not that that's relevant anyway.

The sole aim of a proper criminal justice system is justice; that is to say, the guilty get what they deserve (punishment, plain and simple), the innocent are left alone, and the victims are restored to their original position as much as possible.

Unfortunately, the latter isn't often possible, but there's nothing we can do about that--and it's no reason to ignore the first two parts of justice.

The guilty should be punished, period, end of story. Nothing more, nothing less.

Because there's nothing precious about his life.
Of course there is. He is a SENTIENT BEING. He has intelligence unlike any other creature on this planet. Every instance of this MUST be preserved, because when lost, it is lost forever. There is no afterlife, no reincarnation...no second chances. Once you die, you're dead.

And he cannot "forfeit his humanity." That's impossible. He was clearly mentally ill in some fashion and needs help, not to be killed.

Consider this: what if that man had been a superb doctor had he not been mentally ill? What if he could have been an engineer, a scientist...someone who would really help society?

Hell, even if he'd just been your average Joe office worker, that'd still be better off, because that way he would be helping others in some fashion and be given the chance to live his life.

That mental illness is not something he can help. He needs to be cured of it. We have a responsibility as human beings to care for each other and to help those in need, and he is in need.

Is his crime despicable? Absolutely. Should he be punished in some manner? Of course. But punishment MUST take a backseat to rehabilitation. Indeed, I would work it into the rehabilitation in some manner...how I can't say exactly, but it could be done if we bothered trying.


No, it's not.

Yes it is. Innocents are killed all the time by capital punishment in countries across the world, from those innocent of an accused crime--often in America they are a minority--or those who are being executed for exercising their right to free speech, or for being homosexual, or what have you. Capital punishment is wrong, period. The whole point to punishment is to learn from your mistakes, to not repeat them and to become better for them, yes? What good is capital punishment, then? All it does is kill them, and once dead, they can't learn a damned thing.


Then you are wrong. You are a barbarian who opposes civilization.
Yeah, I'm so barbaric...I don't want to have people executed by the state...I want them to be rehabilitated...quick, someone spare the children from my horrible barbarity! :rolleyes:

I am sorry that you people are so mistaken. I hope it is just a simple case of being misguided rather than you being evil, and actually WANTING murderers getting out and killing us dissenters so your vission of a perfect world can be reilized.

I like the arguments for housing him in prision for life...

He wore an electric shock device and knee brace, making it difficult for him to bend his knee during the sentencing. The courtroom was filled with extra police officers, all measures taken after Braddy escaped from the courthouse in 1984 when he choked a Miami-Dade County corrections officer.

During two other escapes that year, Braddy kidnapped and robbed an assistant pastor and an elderly couple. At one point Braddy was on the run for more than a month before authorities found him in Georgia.

After he was arrested for kidnapping the Maycocks, he tried to escape from the interrogation room by bending an air conditioning grate.

and let's not forget this little gem...
Harrel Franklin Braddy, 58, attacked Shandelle Maycock and daughter Quatisha after he was released early from prison in another case for good behavior. He was convicted in July of first-degree murder, attempted murder, kidnapping, attempted escape and other charges.

So he has escaped many times as well as attempted many more times to escape... and yet he was released on GOOD BEHAVIOR.

so how would one know that he is still unfit for parole (assuming his DP sentence was overturned)?

would you like to hear that he was once more released on 'good behavior' or made parole and was in your neighborhood?

In a case like this, I don't support the death penalty administered by the courts, but I would be alright with the legal system ignoring anything the family of the victims chose to do to him.

I'm against the death penalty still, for all the reasons I've been through before. Even in this case.

Actually there is life after death. Which is why it is important to get people on death row to accept Jesus as there lord. It is a tragedy when anyone goes to hell but murderers must be made to pay for what they have done. It is never to late to accept Jesus Hitler could have done it.

The guilty should be punished, period, end of story. Nothing more, nothing less.

I suspect you'd be hard pushed to find anyone who actually deals with real life criminals who agrees with you. Sometimes, people who have behaved like idiots in the past can get back on the straight and narrow. That's called rehabilitation, and it's a lot cheaper and more productive than just locking them up over and over again.
People who have been in prison on a long term sentence cannot just be let out one day - they need time to adjust to ordinary life. That is also rehabilitation.
In some cases, criminals can be brought face to face with their victim. This, unless they are a truly hopeless case, encourages them to think about what they are doing in future. That is rehabilitation.

Actually there is life after death. Which is why it is important to get people on death row to accept Jesus as there lord. It is a tragedy when anyone goes to hell but murderers must be made to pay for what they have done. It is never to late to accept Jesus Hitler could have done it.
Can you prove that there is some sort of life after death? Can you prove that Jesus existed and was actually God? You are making the claim and thus must offer your proof.

The law cannot afford to legislate based on religious or moral beliefs, because to do so would be to force those upon others. I certainly am not a Christian...I am, in fact, an atheist, yet you would pervert the justice system to serve your own beliefs. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

[QUOTE=Kyronea;13139798]Can you prove that there is some sort of life after death? Can you prove that Jesus existed and was actually God? You are making the claim and thus must offer your proof.

The law cannot afford to legislate based on religious or moral beliefs, because to do so would be to force those upon others. I certainly am not a Christian...I am, in fact, an atheist, yet you would pervert the justice system to serve your own beliefs. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Well i do know one thing that that is that when we die and you are right big deal i waisted a bit of my life. But when we die if I'M right then you are definatly on the losing side of the bet and yea i don't thing that we should have the death penalty just because im a christian. But i do belive that convicted killers on death row should hear about Jesus so they can convert.

Her are my points:

1) cheaper on the econemy for the death penalty than it is for a life time of upkeep, medical expenses, and paying for gaurds to watch this idiot.

2) does recidivism not mean anything: "Repeat Offender"??? anyone..Bueller?..anyone? The man's got a wrap sheet a mile long.

3) He has escapped and attempted to escape sevral times. Commited terrible crimes after each escaping.

4) rope can bought very cheaply and there are still enough tall trees in the world.

5) MG!! the man left a child to be eaten by alligators...why because he thought it would get rid of the body everyone knows that! Basic Criminal Techniques 101 in Florida and Louisiana in the US. Even 10 year olds know that.

6) If he gets life in prison he won't last more than a month for killing and innocent child in the normal prison population. Case in point anyone remember Jeffery Dommer..Buelller? ..anyone.... Bueller?

7) If we let this guy get away with this and just get life in prison he will escape again and commit another crime.

8) If we know he'll escape again and probably kill again then doesn't that make everyone involved guilty of conspiricy to commit murder?

Just my thoughts on the matter

Sorry that ran on and my grammar was bad but you get the idea.

Well i do know one thing that that is that when we die and you are right big deal i waisted a bit of my life. But when we die if I'M right then you are definatly on the losing side of the bet and yea i don't thing that we should have the death penalty just because im a christian. But i do belive that convicted killers on death row should hear about Jesus so they can convert.

Ah good old Pascals Wager.

How have more people not been educated about it by now

If that were true then whoever had might would be right. Hitler had might he was not right. No ryme intented.

Actually, "might makes right" is rhyme intended.

Well i do know one thing that that is that when we die and you are right big deal i waisted a bit of my life. But when we die if I'M right then you are definatly on the losing side of the bet and yea i don't thing that we should have the death penalty just because im a christian. But i do belive that convicted killers on death row should hear about Jesus so they can convert.
I find it very hard to believe that any religion created on this planet would be right. Considering the sheer variety of religions that have come and gone and how every human seems to come up with some religion to explain how things work, I find it much more likely to believe that religions are simply for:

A. Explaining things humans don't understand yet

and

B. Providing comfort for those who do not wish to face uncomfortable thoughts.

Hell, I hate the idea of fading into oblivion when I die. That's one reason I plan to keep myself alive as long as possible until some technology comes along that could render me immortal, or at least pretty close to it. A pipe dream? Fifty years ago, maybe, but not today. In twenty or so years if we can keep the pace of technology up we'll have lovely nanotechnology that'll make life much better in so many ways.

Also, I would be very surprised if more than, say, 5% of all people on death row in this country have not heard of Christianity already. Considering how disgustingly prevalent it is in all levels of society, I'm pretty certain they'd have heard of it. It wouldn't help matters either, considering Jesus and Christianity was a religion created 2000 years ago during a time of many claimed "Messiahs" of the Jewish faith and rips a lot of its mythology straight from Mithraism...

Sorry that ran on and my grammar was bad but you get the idea.
Yes, I did. I would, however, advise in a friendly manner that you improve your grammar, spelling, and punctuation. In a form of communication that relies on pure text, grammar, spelling, and punctuation can make the difference between someone listening to you and someone ignoring you.

I don't agree with the death penalty for fiscal reasons (it costs more to put a person to death than to house them for the rest of their life), and the fact that the execution is so far detached (time-wise) from the sentencing.

Then the proper remedy is to reduce the costs and the time delays.

Besides, when the other convicts find out what he did (especially the way he killed the little 5 year old girl), they'll make the rest of his life a living hell.

The rest of this bastard's life would be very short and end violently and painfully, as it should. But relying on convicts to mete out justice is not the way to go, desirable as the outcome may be.

Ah good old Pascals Wager.

How have more people not been educated about it by now

Quite so. Still, I don't see why people should have to be educated about it - even as a child I could see (some of) the flaws in it. How anyone could be converted to Christianity on the strength of it is quite beyond me.

Quite so. Still, I don't see why people should have to be educated about it - even as a child I could see (some of) the flaws in it. How anyone could be converted to Christianity on the strength of it is quite beyond me.

It has to do with critical thinking skills. Most people in this country are educated against critical thinking at an early age because they are indoctrinated into thinking that faith--believing in something without any evidence, or even contrary to evidence--is a virtue, when it is in fact a poisonous fault and a blight on all governmental policy.

Actually there is life after death. Which is why it is important to get people on death row to accept Jesus as there lord. It is a tragedy when anyone goes to hell but murderers must be made to pay for what they have done. It is never to late to accept Jesus Hitler could have done it.

Please do not try to use religion as justification to kill someone. It's never worked out in the past.

I am sorry that you people are so mistaken. I hope it is just a simple case of being misguided rather than you being evil, and actually WANTING murderers getting out and killing us dissenters so your vission of a perfect world can be reilized.
But i do belive that convicted killers on death row should hear about Jesus so they can convert.

hehe..you are a funny puppet/troll. Can I keep you? :D


And just because we oppose the death penalty sure does NOT mean that we want murderers "getting out". But then again..I am not sure that is what you meant by the first post quoted anyways..

I did not get that quote thing right so it messed up what i was saying. Anyway, Imortality? Yes the life expectancy will go up probably to the mid hundreds. But artificial immortality could not possibly be created for tens if not hundereds of thousands of years. You say you are an atheist. Tell me this then how did every single life form that ever existed come into creation. The cells of creatures look remarkably like someone designed them to me. It takes more faith to belive that out of NOTHING an explosion came and made energy. Then energy turned into matter then slowly changed its way to me and you.

The law cannot afford to legislate based on religious or moral beliefs, because to do so would be to force those upon others. I certainly am not a Christian...I am, in fact, an atheist, yet you would pervert the justice system to serve your own beliefs. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Well i do know one thing that that is that when we die and you are right big deal i waisted a bit of my life. But when we die if I'M right then you are definatly on the losing side of the bet and yea i don't thing that we should have the death penalty just because im a christian. But i do belive that convicted killers on death row should hear about Jesus so they can convert.

You make Hitler Jesus confused :eek:

I did the "first post" as you call it to get people posting again by saying somthing stupid you could bite into.

I'm against the death penalty still, for all the reasons I've been through before. Even in this case.

And you remain adrift in a moral wasteland still, for all the reasons others have been through before. Especially in this case.

Braddy should be executed TOMORROW, by the most painful means available. Consistent with the 8th Amendment, of course ;)

I did the "first post" as you call it to get people posting again by saying somthing stupid you could bite into.

;) Uh Huh

After all your kind love mocking people. Unless of coarce its muslims or your fellow socialists.

I did not get that quote thing right so it messed up what i was saying. Anyway, Imortality? Yes the life expectancy will go up probably to the mid hundreds. But artificial immortality could not possibly be created for tens if not hundereds of thousands of years. You say you are an atheist. Tell me this then how did every single life form that ever existed come into creation. The cells of creatures look remarkably like someone designed them to me. It takes more faith to belive that out of NOTHING an explosion came and made energy. Then energy turned into matter then slowly changed its way to me and you.

Actually, it does not take faith. It takes careful scientific observation and theorization. I am not a scientist myself so I will not try to fully address your claims. I will instead point you to those on here who are scientists, like Bottle, or Dempublicents, or even Deus Malus Est for the physics related question.

And hey, if you're willing to learn, I'm sure they'll be glad to teach you.

As for the immortality...sure it could be. The aging process can easily be halted by nanotechnology, and that's presuming I just keep my human body. I'd much rather go for a fully artificial body. Hell, I'd even gladly back up my brain's contents occasionally so that if my artificial body is destroyed and the contents of that brain lost, I can come back to life, in a sense.

Admittedly it's all speculation based on what technology might be capable of in the future, but I like to look long-term.

;) Uh Huh
Quit picking at him.
After all your kind love mocking people. Unless of coarce its muslims or your fellow socialists.
Mocking is something everyone does. You're doing it right now, in fact. It's a fact of life, really.

Actually i have come very very close to being coming a athiest. the one thing that kept me from doing so is the sheer hatred every other religion (including atheism) feels for christianty. The bible does say that others will hate us for our belives and so far it has been true every ware i go.

After all your kind love mocking people. Unless of coarce its muslims or your fellow socialists.

Translation please?

Actually i have come very very close to being coming a athiest. the one thing that kept me from doing so is the sheer hatred every other religion (including atheism) feels for christianty. The bible does say that others will hate us for our belives and so far it has been true every ware i go.

Such as?

Her are my points:

1) cheaper on the econemy for the death penalty than it is for a life time of upkeep, medical expenses, and paying for gaurds to watch this idiot.

Disproven by the fact that the death penalty somehow ends up costing more. Ask other people for their sources, but their arguments seem reasonable enough.

2) does recidivism not mean anything: "Repeat Offender"??? anyone..Bueller?..anyone? The man's got a wrap sheet a mile long.

Seeing as how it's hard to commit a crime while you're in prison, recidivism does in fact not mean anything.

3) He has escapped and attempted to escape sevral times. Commited terrible crimes after each escaping.

He escaped from courts and interrogation rooms. Never from prison.

4) rope can bought very cheaply and there are still enough tall trees in the world.

Lynching witches is also easy.

6) If he gets life in prison he won't last more than a month for killing and innocent child in the normal prison population. Case in point anyone remember Jeffery Dommer..Buelller? ..anyone.... Bueller?

I do not know Bueller and cannot be bothered to look him up.

7) If we let this guy get away with this and just get life in prison he will escape again and commit another crime.

He never escaped from prison.

8) If we know he'll escape again and probably kill again then doesn't that make everyone involved guilty of conspiricy to commit murder?

If we execute him, doesn't That make everyone involved guilty of conspiracy to commit murder?

Nano technology is an over used sci fi deus ex machina. Nano technolgy isnt magic. It cannot make you immortal. What would its power sorce be? How could it repair or restore itself? How could it keep your cells alive forever? wouldnt it be so expensive that only a few could get it? Or only the powerfull?

But artificial immortality could not possibly be created for tens if not hundereds of thousands of years.

Well, in theory, the human body can already do "immortality".

It's called cancer.

Such as?

What do you mean? Make yourself more clear.

Actually i have come very very close to being coming a athiest. the one thing that kept me from doing so is the sheer hatred every other religion (including atheism) feels for christianty. The bible does say that others will hate us for our belives and so far it has been true every ware i go.

Atheism is not a religion. Atheists are separated by a vast variety of varying beliefs and reasons for becoming atheists. It can often be hard to find the commonality, in fact, apart from denying the existence of gods.

Also, it's not hatred so much as it is bitterness about how WE have been treated, especially in this country and other similar countries. Atheists are constantly mocked, berated, and discriminated against when it comes to jobs, political office, and their lives in general. Hell, take a look at how people mock Richard Dawkins: he simply goes on about how "I think your religion is faulty and here is why" and people call him an extremist for it, whereas religious people have to do crazy things like suicide bomb civilians or abortion clinics to be considered extremist. Many of us become extremely bitter, usually of whatever religion it is we have the most experience with. In this country, it's with Christianity. I admit my own bitterness runs deep, but I try not to let it affect how I treat others.

Disproven by the fact that the death penalty somehow ends up costing more. Ask other people for their sources, but their arguments seem reasonable enough. the costs is in the appeals process.

Seeing as how it's hard to commit a crime while you're in prison, recidivism does in fact not mean anything.crimes can still be committed in prision. Guards are not just there to keep prisoners from escaping.

He escaped from courts and interrogation rooms. Never from prison. true, he was RELEASED ON GOOD BEHAVIOR from prision.

Lynching witches is also easy. WRONG! you BURN WITCHES!!! and they burn easy cuz they're made of wood. :p

He never escaped from prison. but he can be released on Good Behavior or on Parole (assuming his DP is overturned.)

If we execute him, doesn't That make everyone involved guilty of conspiracy to commit murder? nope.

What do you mean? Make yourself more clear.

I don't know how all other religions, as part of their teachings, hate Christianity. Do you have examples?

Nano technology is an over used sci fi deus ex machina. Nano technolgy isnt magic. It cannot make you immortal. What would its power sorce be? How could it repair or restore itself? How could it keep your cells alive forever? wouldnt it be so expensive that only a few could get it? Or only the powerfull?

Nanotechnology is oft misunderstood, yes, but it's more powerful than you think. As for how it is powered...damned if I know. Again, I suggest asking actual scientists.

I am simply going off of what I have heard from reputable scientists who know what they are talking about.

As for how it would keep cells alive...well, the basic idea is to repair the damage caused by anything, be it injuries or aging or what have you. I think the nanites would probably be self-sustaining by repairing each other. They'd probably get their resources from the food you eat.

In fact, that might be how they'd gain energy as well, if such a thing could be made. I don't see why not since all we're really talking about is creating artificial cells that already do that sort of thing anyway.

Such as?

Atheism is not a religion. Atheists are separated by a vast variety of varying beliefs and reasons for becoming atheists. It can often be hard to find the commonality, in fact, apart from denying the existence of gods.

Also, it's not hatred so much as it is bitterness about how WE have been treated, especially in this country and other similar countries. Atheists are constantly mocked, berated, and discriminated against when it comes to jobs, political office, and their lives in general. Hell, take a look at how people mock Richard Dawkins: he simply goes on about how "I think your religion is faulty and here is why" and people call him an extremist for it, whereas religious people have to do crazy things like suicide bomb civilians or abortion clinics to be considered extremist. Many of us become extremely bitter, usually of whatever religion it is we have the most experience with. In this country, it's with Christianity. I admit my own bitterness runs deep, but I try not to let it affect how I treat others.

I apologies for how any other christians may have treated you. I know that probably does not make up for any hard feelings but most christians arnt like that. What do you mean by discriminated? Most of the rulers and people in europe are athiests. Even in the U.S you get more acomodations than us.

Well... seems like one bastard is coming off way too easily. Now his surviving victim is the only one who is going to suffer for years and years... This is not justice, this is rewarding somebody for his cruelty!

HEY HEY HEY this thread is about the death penalty not about religion. You should m ake a seperat thread for this.

the costs is in the appeals process.

Which is necessary, because otherwise there would be more innocents getting killed.

crimes can still be committed in prision. Guards are not just there to keep prisoners from escaping.

Heh, this just makes me think of Prison Break.

true, he was RELEASED ON GOOD BEHAVIOR from prision.

He does seem to be of a very single mind.

WRONG! you BURN WITCHES!!! and they burn easy cuz they're made of wood. :p

Lies! They are the spirit that resides within the empty shell of old discarded clothing on a midsummer's eve!

However, they do burn.

but he can be released on Good Behavior or on Parole (assuming his DP is overturned.)

Released, yes, but he hasn't escaped from prison. If you want to make sure he can't be released, then make sure he gets as many years as possible for as many crimes as possible.

nope.

Well it does if you consider state-sponsored murder equivalent to murder.

I apologies for how any other christians may have treated you. I know that probably does not make up for any hard feelings but most christians arnt like that. What do you mean by discriminated? Most of the rulers and people in europe are athiests. Even in the U.S you get more acomodations than us.

That's funny. Last I checked, some 80-90% of the Danish people were part of the national church of Denmark.

They're certainly not nearly as religious as some of the other Europeans...

That's funny. Last I checked, some 80-90% of the Danish people were part of the national church of Denmark.

They're certainly not nearly as religious as some of the other Europeans...

Im not counting the muslims. In france 60% OF THE CLURGY go to church. That if for the CLURGY the leaders of the church. A
ll of them should be going.

I apologies for how any other christians may have treated you. I know that probably does not make up for any hard feelings but most christians arnt like that. What do you mean by discriminated? Most of the rulers and people in europe are athiests. Even in the U.S you get more acomodations than us.

The discrimination can be hard to see sometimes because people don't realize that it is discrimination. Simple things like thinking an atheist is someone without any sort of morals(completely untrue, especially in my case) or just thinking less of someone who is an atheist because of their atheism. Being mocked in school by your fellow classmates because you refuse to join in prayer clubs or say the Pledge of Allegence. Being denied various jobs or even FIRED from those jobs because you are an atheist.

Hell, most people in this country would not be willing to elect an openly atheistic President, or even members of Congress. There is only ONE openly atheistic member of Congress, and he is not likely to win reelection. Everyone else either hides their atheism by pretending to be Christian in some manner or are actually Christian, whatever the denomination might be.

Back in January on Paula Zahn's show on CNN they had a segment about atheists with two pundits who were saying things like "atheists should just shut up about discrimination" and making claims about how "atheists want to get rid of any sort of prayer in schools" (when in fact what we're against is things like state-mandated prayer, which goes against the First Amendment.) The person defending the atheist side? He wasn't an atheist. He was a Christian, and he didn't do a very good job of defending atheists either.

When a major news network can have a segment on atheism without even having an atheist to defend our case...that is very sad, and very telling. What's even more telling is how "militant atheist" is used much in the same way as "uppity ******" was when blacks were doing their best to get the civil rights they deserved.

We are discriminated against every day, whether those who are religious are willing to admit it or not.

Well... seems like one bastard is coming off way too easily. Now his surviving victim is the only one who is going to suffer for years and years... This is not justice, this is rewarding somebody for his cruelty!

and what would be appropriate in your view?

Im not counting the muslims. In france 60% OF THE CLURGY go to church. That if for the CLURGY the leaders of the church. A
ll of them should be going.

And a priest here in Denmark said "I do not believe in god"

Your point?

That's funny. Last I checked, some 80-90% of the Danish people were part of the national church of Denmark.

They're certainly not nearly as religious as some of the other Europeans...

The discrimination can be hard to see sometimes because people don't realize that it is discrimination. Simple things like thinking an atheist is someone without any sort of morals(completely untrue, especially in my case) or just thinking less of someone who is an atheist because of their atheism. Being mocked in school by your fellow classmates because you refuse to join in prayer clubs or say the Pledge of Allegence. Being denied various jobs or even FIRED from those jobs because you are an atheist.

Hell, most people in this country would not be willing to elect an openly atheistic President, or even members of Congress. There is only ONE openly atheistic member of Congress, and he is not likely to win reelection. Everyone else either hides their atheism by pretending to be Christian in some manner or are actually Christian, whatever the denomination might be.

Back in January on Paula Zahn's show on CNN they had a segment about atheists with two pundits who were saying things like "atheists should just shut up about discrimination" and making claims about how "atheists want to get rid of any sort of prayer in schools" (when in fact what we're against is things like state-mandated prayer, which goes against the First Amendment.) The person defending the atheist side? He wasn't an atheist. He was a Christian, and he didn't do a very good job of defending atheists either.

When a major news network can have a segment on atheism without even having an atheist to defend our case...that is very sad, and very telling. What's even more telling is how "militant atheist" is used much in the same way as "uppity ******" was when blacks were doing their best to get the civil rights they deserved.

We are discriminated against every day, whether those who are religious are willing to admit it or not.

Being mocked for not join prair club? Where did you go to school man. Not saying the pledge of alegance? You can still say it and you dont have to belive the under god part. I assume you do suport and love our contry. Hides there athism? All the atheists I see are like the gays, shoving it in our faces.

All the atheists I see are like the gays, shoving it in our faces.

Really? I've never seen an atheist standing on the street corner, yelling about how everyone who doesn't agree with him is going to hell.

Being mocked for not join prair club? Where did you go to school man. Not saying the pledge of alegance? You can still say it and you dont have to belive the under god part. I assume you do suport and love our contry. Hides there athism? All the atheists I see are like the gays, shoving it in our faces.

I can't quite see why my post was quoted there. Care to enlighten me?

I wouldn't kill him, but I would let the general prison population take care of him like the way they took care of Jeffrey Dahmer. There's also the choice to do this to the guy.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/103/255299325_82a2ee3083.jpg

Really? I've never seen an atheist standing on the street corner, yelling about how everyone who doesn't agree with him is going to hell.

I have never seen a christian yelling in the streets that we are all monkeys.

Even if capital punishment for murderers, rapists, burglars, thieves, muggers, vandals, and trespassers were abolished, it would still be morally right.


Good grief!

Notice to the world: do not walk across Linus and Lucy's lawn, as he seems to be saying that he would be morally justified in killing you for doing so.

Being mocked for not join prair club? Where did you go to school man. Not saying the pledge of alegance? You can still say it and you dont have to belive the under god part. I assume you do suport and love our contry. Hides there athism? All the atheists I see are like the gays, shoving it in our faces.
I went to school in Ohio, in California, and Colorado. In all three states I was berated for refusing to say the Pledge. (Which I have refused to say not only for the unnecessary "under god" part but because I see it as pledging to support the current government, and I do not in any way, shape, or form support the current government of this country. It sickens me to see what Bush has done to my United States of America.)

But those were mainly examples, really, rather than being intended to be truly representative. I'm sure each atheist on here can give you several stories as to how they were discriminated in some form somewhere.

And the bit about "atheists shoving it in people's faces" is, like homosexuality, quite necessary. We're fighting to be able to be treated equally, both under the law and in society. We have every right to be treated in the same manner as everyone else, just like a homosexual has every right to every thing that a heterosexual does, including marriage.

Or would you rather we simply "hide" and "stay out of the way" like good little atheists and ignore what's being done to us? No.

Those who are hiding are, by the way, the people currently in Congress, if there are any. There are bound to be several people in Congress who profess to be Christian while actually being atheists which they hide because, as I said, few people in this country would be willing to elect them due to their atheism, regardless of their other positions.

I can't quite see why my post was quoted there. Care to enlighten me?

Sorry i did relize it was there.

I have never seen a christian yelling in the streets that we are all monkeys.

I've never seen anyone yelling in the streets that we are all monkeys.

Of course, I have heard from Christians that "scientists think we all came from monkeys," which is pretty funny.

I have never seen a christian yelling in the streets that we are all monkeys.

You've never seen an atheist do that either.

I went to school in Ohio, in California, and Colorado. In all three states I was berated for refusing to say the Pledge. (Which I have refused to say not only for the unnecessary "under god" part but because I see it as pledging to support the current government, and I do not in any way, shape, or form support the current government of this country. It sickens me to see what Bush has done to my United States of America.)

But those were mainly examples, really, rather than being intended to be truly representative. I'm sure each atheist on here can give you several stories as to how they were discriminated in some form somewhere.

And the bit about "atheists shoving it in people's faces" is, like homosexuality, quite necessary. We're fighting to be able to be treated equally, both under the law and in society. We have every right to be treated in the same manner as everyone else, just like a homosexual has every right to every thing that a heterosexual does, including marriage.

Or would you rather we simply "hide" and "stay out of the way" like good little atheists and ignore what's being done to us? No.

Those who are hiding are, by the way, the people currently in Congress, if there are any. There are bound to be several people in Congress who profess to be Christian while actually being atheists which they hide because, as I said, few people in this country would be willing to elect them due to their atheism, regardless of their other positions.

One thing i never understood. If we evolved from apes or whatever and male and female are natural NOT male and male or visa versa then why do you suport gay marrage. BTW i dont care what two adults do in the privacy of their own home but DON'T shove it in my face.

Obviously he is mentally deranged. We should put him in rehab. Electro-shock therapy would do wonders for him. I would recommend trying 400 volts at 50 amps.

I have lived in Washington all my life and if anything people mock you for being christian.

I like the arguments for housing him in prision for life...

<SNIP escape attempts>

So he has escaped many times as well as attempted many more times to escape... and yet he was released on GOOD BEHAVIOR.

so how would one know that he is still unfit for parole (assuming his DP sentence was overturned)?

would you like to hear that he was once more released on 'good behavior' or made parole and was in your neighborhood?

Death Row inmates can try to escape as well. As for being released for good behavior . . . I'm of the view that a life sentence should be just that (barring evidence exonerating the convicted). No time off even if you have a religious experience so profound you can raise the dead.

One thing i never understood. If we evolved from apes or whatever and male and female are natural NOT male and male or visa versa then why do you suport gay marrage. BTW i dont care what two adults do in the privacy of their own home but DON'T shove it in my face.

Quite a few animal species have homosexuality. Glad I could clear that one up.

Which is necessary, because otherwise there would be more innocents getting killed.
*nods* just saying where the cost comes from.

He does seem to be of a very single mind. and considering how quickly he committed this crime after being released...

Lies! They are the spirit that resides within the empty shell of old discarded clothing on a midsummer's eve!

However, they do burn.... so that's why they weigh the same as a duck! :eek:


Released, yes, but he hasn't escaped from prison. If you want to make sure he can't be released, then make sure he gets as many years as possible for as many crimes as possible. unfortunaly, unless specified "Without Parole" everyone is elegible for Parole. then there is the "Good Behavior" clause.

then there are points where the prisioner is NOT in prision but still serving his sentence... say... trips to the hospital. you cannot deny health care for inmates. and a Hospital isn't as heavily guarded as a courthouse.

Well it does if you consider state-sponsored murder equivalent to murder.well, the same can be said about putting a person away for life. Putting a person in jail equivilant to 1) Slavery 2) Removal of rights to privacy 3) Removal of the protection from searches and seazures

If you don't suport the democratic system of american government. You are FREE to move to communist china or cuba or N korea where your views will be loved.

Quite a few animal species have homosexuality. Glad I could clear that one up.

Which ones? Or rather which MAMALS.

I've never seen anyone yelling in the streets that we are all monkeys.

Of course, I have heard from Christians that "scientists think we all came from monkeys," which is pretty funny.

Well, technically, in a way we did, if you want to consider the prehistoric primate ancestor of all modern Great Apes as a monkey.

But they usually mean it as "we evolved from some other animal we can see right now" which is a false perception.

One thing i never understood. If we evolved from apes or whatever and male and female are natural NOT male and male or visa versa then why do you suport gay marrage. BTW i dont care what two adults do in the privacy of their own home but DON'T shove it in my face.
Homosexuality is natural, whatever the causes may be. We can see evidence of homosexuality in many animal species, not just humans.

Plus, I fail to see why homosexuality or heterosexuality should determine whether someone can get married or not. If they love each other, why stop it? Especially since marriage in this day and age confers a lot of rights that cannot be gotten otherwise, involving taxes, medical issues of various sorts--including visitation rights--and so on and so forth.

And what would you consider "shoving it in my face" anyway? Being married? Showing public displays of affection that heterosexuals show all the time like hugs or brief kisses? Living their lives openly and not denying themselves? I'm curious because I hear this argument many times and it usually means that the person saying it doesn't want to see any homosexuality at all and thus would like to deny the rights of others because they find it unappealing.

If you don't suport the democratic system of american government. You are FREE to move to communist china or cuba or N korea where your views will be loved.
Ah, I see. "Love it or leave it" eh? Isn't the whole point of democracy to allow for varying ideas and beliefs? To be free, as it were?

China, Cuba, North Korea...all of those places would restrict my rights, the rights that I deserve as a human being. Why would I move to those countries? I'd rather change my country to be what I want it to be, which would be better for all.

Which ones? Or rather which MAMALS.
Dolphins, Bonobos(a type of chimpanzee), Giraffes...any others, guys? I can't think of any other mammals right now. I know there were hmosexual penguins and flamingos.

Death Row inmates can try to escape as well. As for being released for good behavior . . . I'm of the view that a life sentence should be just that (barring evidence exonerating the convicted). No time off even if you have a religious experience so profound you can raise the dead.
Then you run into the problem Hawaii has. 2000 inmates spread across mainland facilities costing us about $60+million.

and as I said, even Life has a possiblity of parole unless specifically said without parole.

trivia. did you know that a 20 yr old sentenced to life will have his first parole hearing before someone of the same age who was sentenced to a 99 year sentence?

Quite a few animal species have homosexuality. Glad I could clear that one up.

Well, technically, in a way we did, if you want to consider the prehistoric primate ancestor of all modern Great Apes as a monkey.

But they usually mean it as "we evolved from some other animal we can see right now" which is a false perception.


Homosexuality is natural, whatever the causes may be. We can see evidence of homosexuality in many animal species, not just humans.

Plus, I fail to see why homosexuality or heterosexuality should determine whether someone can get married or not. If they love each other, why stop it? Especially since marriage in this day and age confers a lot of rights that cannot be gotten otherwise, involving taxes, medical issues of various sorts--including visitation rights--and so on and so forth.

And what would you consider "shoving it in my face" anyway? Being married? Showing public displays of affection that heterosexuals show all the time like hugs or brief kisses? Living their lives openly and not denying themselves? I'm curious because I hear this argument many times and it usually means that the person saying it doesn't want to see any homosexuality at all and thus would like to deny the rights of others because they find it unappealing.

Mainly that hideously annoying inflection in their voice and those strange cloths and walking styles.

One thing i never understood. If we evolved from apes or whatever and male and female are natural NOT male and male or visa versa then why do you suport gay marrage. BTW i dont care what two adults do in the privacy of their own home but DON'T shove it in my face.

Wow, that was incoherent.

Sexual contact between males and females, males and males, and females and females are ALL found in nature. See those people down the street? They're not robots. They're natural. Gay people are also not robots. Duh. (Further, non-heterosexual interactions have been observed in a wide variety of nonhuman species. Those species, too, are not robots, i.e. they are "natural.")

I support gay marriage because marriage is a fundamental human right, and fundamental human rights should never be restricted on the basis of gender. If I, a woman, can marry a man, but a man cannot marry another man, then his rights are being restricted solely on the basis of his gender. That is unconstitutional.

I agree, if people have sexual intercourse in your face without your consent, that's pretty inappropriate. Of course, I have a funny feeling that's not what you're referring to when you talk about people "shoving things in your face." I see no reason why all couples shouldn't be permitted to kiss, hold hands, snuggle, and otherwise engage in normal human behavior in public, regardless of their genders.

Wow, that was incoherent.

Sexual contact between males and females, males and males, and females and females are ALL found in nature. See those people down the street? They're not robots. They're natural. Gay people are also not robots. Duh. (Further, non-heterosexual interactions have been observed in a wide variety of nonhuman species. Those species, too, are not robots, i.e. they are "natural.")

I support gay marriage because marriage is a fundamental human right, and fundamental human rights should never be restricted on the basis of gender. If I, a woman, can marry a man, but a man cannot marry another man, then his rights are being restricted solely on the basis of his gender. That is unconstitutional.

I agree, if people have sexual intercourse in your face without your consent, that's pretty inappropriate. Of course, I have a funny feeling that's not what you're referring to when you talk about people "shoving things in your face." I see no reason why all couples shouldn't be permitted to kiss, hold hands, snuggle, and otherwise engage in normal human behavior in public, regardless of their genders.

Marrage is not a right it is a privlege. also if homo sexual marrage is ok why not have one man and 20 women or visa versa?

Mainly that hideously annoying inflection in their voice and those strange cloths and walking styles.

Hahahahaha.

So, a few posts back, you were defending the wonders of democracy, and now you want to outlaw WALKING FUNNY.

You're really hysterical, you know that?


Also, my gay friends will be amused to hear that they all wear "strange clothes" and have "annoying vocal inflections." Especially my friend B., who is a professional classical singer with one of the most beautiful and mellifluous voices I have ever heard, who wears nothing except for jeans and T-shirts on informal occasions and very nice suits on formal ones, and who boinks other boys like there's no tomorrow. ;)

Which ones? Or rather which MAMALS.

Are you aware that humans are mammals?

One thing i never understood. If we evolved from apes or whatever and male and female are natural NOT male and male or visa versa then why do you suport gay marrage. BTW i dont care what two adults do in the privacy of their own home but DON'T shove it in my face.

You didn't see that exhibition in Norway which showed homosexual animals, did you?

Mainly that hideously annoying inflection in their voice and those strange cloths and walking styles.
You mean a stereotype that is true of very few homosexuals? That's not what homosexuality is, Kontor. Not by far. Sure, there are some homosexuals like that, but there are some heterosexuals like that too.

Besides, why should those who do talk like that or walk like that or whatever be forced to change how they live? Why can't they just live the way they want? They're not trying to shove it in your face. They're just being themselves. Are you saying people can't be themselves?

? To be free, as it were?

China, Cuba, North Korea...all of those places would restrict my rights, the rights that I deserve as a human being. Why would I move to those countries? I'd rather change my country to be what I want it to be, which would be better for all.


Dolphins, Bonobos(a type of chimpanzee), Giraffes...any others, guys? I can't think of any other mammals right now. I know there were hmosexual penguins and flamingos.[/QUOTE]

You just stated you hate the form of government has right now. If you were to get your way and change it them millions of others would hate it. Why don't you just save us the touble and go to a contry that already holds your views as law. Anyway our form of government has worked pretty fine for the past 300 years.

Marrage is not a right it is a privlege. also if homo sexual marrage is ok why not have one man and 20 women or visa versa?

Indeed, why not? Why should we stop people from doing that sort of thing if they wish? So long as everyone is CONSENTING(which is the real issue) why should we stop it?

And I'd say it's a right. It's certainly defined as a right under international law.

Mainly that hideously annoying inflection in their voice and those strange cloths and walking styles.

A friend of mine is a lesbian, and she doesn't walk, talk or dress funny. So, you'd be okay with her? Not that she'd care about your opinion, you understand, I just want to figure out whether you've actually given this matter any thought at all.

I do not oppose abortion because banning abortion doesn't make much of a difference to the number of abortions carried out, but does make a large difference to the survival rate of the mother. And if you now say "People who kill their babies should die for it." So help me, I'll probably get banned if I'm not sensible enough to put you on ignore for the rest of the time you're on NS.

Did I say that mothers who commit abortions should die? My my you are putting words in my mouth. Nice debating.:rolleyes:


Oh dear. Did I say you said it? Clue here, the answer has two letters, begins with 'N', and ends with 'o'. Got it?

Now then, please remember how important 'if' is as a word.

As for the rest of your trolling, I can't be bothered. While you're busy tarring us 'liberal socialists' with the same brush, please remember that we come in many different stripes, just as Atheists do. I'm a Christian, for a start, so I'd stop okaying the death penalty on the idea that "We can convert them". Two main problems with it: One, if they are fully believing as they would be to go to heaven, why should we then kill them?, and two, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Marrage is not a right it is a privlege. also if homo sexual marrage is ok why not have one man and 20 women or visa versa?

Untrue. Marriage has been ruled to be a right, both by the UN and the SCOTUS.

Also, good question! There's certainly a strong case to be made for legalizing polyamorous marriages. However, they have unfortunately been associated with coercion in a lot of cases, which makes many people (myself included) a bit leery of legalization. That, however, certainly seems to be even more off-topic than the rest of this threadjack.

I have never seen a christian yelling in the streets that we are all monkeys.

I've never seen anyone do that.

Mainly that hideously annoying inflection in their voice and those strange cloths and walking styles.

Please do not restrict the clothing I choose to wear (no, I'm not homosexual, but I do have a strange taste in clothes). I'd hate to walk naked.

You mean a stereotype that is true of very few homosexuals? That's not what homosexuality is, Kontor. Not by far. Sure, there are some homosexuals like that, but there are some heterosexuals like that too.

Besides, why should those who do talk like that or walk like that or whatever be forced to change how they live? Why can't they just live the way they want? They're not trying to shove it in your face. They're just being themselves. Are you saying people can't be themselves?

I am being myself right now and you seem to want me to stop being me. Also i am not homophibic i disagree with their lifestyles but i do not hate them. On youtube there is a show called "what the buck" other than his annoying inflection i think he is pretty funny and he is gay.

I've never seen anyone do that.

I will be sure to change that :D

Just tell me which street to yell it on ;)

[/joke]

I will be sure to change that :D

Just tell me which street to yell it on ;)

[/joke]

Make sure you don't wear any "strange clothes" while doing so!

You mean a stereotype that is true of very few [QUOTE=The Pictish Revival;13140003]A friend of mine is a lesbian, and she doesn't walk, talk or dress funny. So, you'd be okay with her? Not that she'd care about your opinion, you understand, I just want to figure out whether you've actually given this matter any thought at all.

As long as she doesnt talk about it i would be fine. Just like i wouldnt want a hetro to talk all about there sex or how great it is.

One thing i never understood. If we evolved from apes or whatever and male and female are natural NOT male and male or visa versa then why do you suport gay marrage. BTW i dont care what two adults do in the privacy of their own home but DON'T shove it in my face.

You need to start a different thread to discuss your bigotry.

You just stated you hate the form of government has right now. If you were to get your way and change it them millions of others would hate it. Why don't you just save us the touble and go to a contry that already holds your views as law. Anyway our form of government has worked pretty fine for the past 300 years.

I don't hate the form of government. I like the form of government.

What I don't like are POLICIES and CERTAIN LAWS and REGULATIONS that I want to see changed. For example, I want to see homosexuals be allowed to marry freely. I want to see atheists be allowed to freely run for office or otherwise not be discriminated against. I want to see more rehabilitation of criminals versus punative measures. I want to see the death penalty vanish. I want universal health care.

I also want more checks on the power of our government to prevent someone like Bush from abusing it as he has. I want to see torture outlawed completely, including those "enhanced interrogation techniques." I want to see more regulations on industry to help protect the environment(sensible regulations that allow for industry to work well without harming the environment as it were.) I want for the two superparties to be broken into multiple parties so that there is fairer representation. I want third parties and independents to be able to run for office and have a fair chance of winning.

But most of all? I want this country to stay free, to stay a democracy. I want this country to be what it should be.

Make sure you don't wear any "strange clothes" while doing so!

I'll wear my cape, just for you ;)

You need to start a different thread to discuss your bigotry.

HEHE freedom of speech. You are bigoted too for atomatacly hating me and what i belive.

I'll wear my cape, just for you ;)

*gasp* I have a cape, too! Do you think that means we're gay now?

I am being myself right now and you seem to want me to stop being me. Also i am not homophibic i disagree with their lifestyles but i do not hate them. On youtube there is a show called "what the buck" other than his annoying inflection i think he is pretty funny and he is gay.

I don't want you to stop being yourself. I would like for you to open your mind and consider that your bigotry might not be the brightest or correctest of ideas, however.

By all means you should be able to be who you are. If you want to continue being bigoted I will protect your right to free speech. I will also, though, protect MY right to free speech to condemn your hatred. ;)

[QUOTE=Kyronea;13139996]You mean a stereotype that is true of very few

As long as she doesnt talk about it i would be fine. Just like i wouldnt want a hetro to talk all about there sex or how great it is.

So your comments about homosexual people were just you rehashing a stupid old stereotype. Just checking.

HEHE freedom of speech. You are bigoted too for atomatacly hating me and what i belive.

Believing that all gay people speak, dress, and walk the same way is bigoted. That is a fact. Stating that fact is not the same as "hating you."

Then you run into the problem Hawaii has. 2000 inmates spread across mainland facilities costing us about $60+million.

and as I said, even Life has a possiblity of parole unless specifically said without parole.

I rather figured that by saying a life sentence should be just that I was advocating that all life sentences be without possibility of parole.

You need to start a different thread to discuss your bigotry.

Oh dear. Did I say you said it? Clue here, the answer has two letters, begins with 'N', and ends with 'o'. Got it?

Now then, please remember how important 'if' is as a word.

As for the rest of your trolling, I can't be bothered. While you're busy tarring us 'liberal socialists' with the same brush, please remember that we come in many different stripes, just as Atheists do. I'm a Christian, for a start, so I'd stop okaying the death penalty on the idea that "We can convert them". Two main problems with it: One, if they are fully believing as they would be to go to heaven, why should we then kill them?, and two, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Being able to forgive killers is admirable but they still need to pay for their crime. If somone killed my loved one i dont know if i would be able to forgive them. I am glad that you could. But letting them b ack into society is not the answer.

I rather figured that by saying a life sentence should be just that I was advocating that all life sentences be without possibility of parole.

That wouldn't be just. That'd just be sweeping the problem under the rug.

What would be just is to rehabilitate him and to make him a productive member of society again.

Mainly that hideously annoying inflection in their voice and those strange cloths and walking styles.

Didn't get enough sleep last night and I'm feeling sillier than normal, so it's time to sing the troll song . . .

Troll troll troll, trolly trolly trolly troll, trolly trolly troll troll troll . . .

I don't want you to stop being yourself. I would like for you to open your mind and consider that your bigotry might not be the brightest or correctest of ideas, however.

By all means you should be able to be who you are. If you want to continue being bigoted I will protect your right to free speech. I will also, though, protect MY right to free speech to condemn your hatred. ;)

I will protect your right to free speech even though your bigotry against christians and any one who holds an opposing view.

Didn't get enough sleep last night and I'm feeling sillier than normal, so it's time to sing the troll song . . .

Troll troll troll, trolly trolly trolly troll, torlly trolly troll troll troll . . .

Maybe you should get yourself checked into a hospital. You have repeating idiocy syndrome.

Ah, I see. "Love it or leave it" eh? Isn't the whole point of democracy to allow for varying ideas and beliefs? To be free, as it were?

I had a comment on that upthread somewhere, let me dig it out:

A free society must be ready to fight with one hand tied behind it's back, because it is free. It must be willing to pay the occasional life that could have been avoided by total surveillance, because it is free. It must be willing to stand up and say "Here we are, do your worst, we aren't giving up our freedoms" to those who would attack it, because that is what it means to be free!
-- Timothy Kew (UNIverseVERSE)

Being able to forgive killers is admirable but they still need to pay for their crime. If somone killed my loved one i dont know if i would be able to forgive them. I am glad that you could. But letting them b ack into society is not the answer.

I'll admit that's a very hard thing for me to contemplate as well, the forgiveness part.

But I think it is the answer. Obviously we don't just toss them into society, and nor should they go without punishment.

Punishment, though, needs to not just be punitive and harmful, but should also teach and help them to grow from the experience, to be better for it. That's why I support such rehabilitation.

Consider this scenario:

Twenty year old Juan Carlos comes from a very poor family. Because his family is so poor he had to drop out of school at fourteen and earn a job to keep the rent up. He didn't get the education he needed, and he becomes more and more frustrated as time goes on, because that sort of thing does wear down on a person.

Juan eventually becomes so frustrated with his lack of money and so on that he holds up a store somewhere and steals large amounts of cash. Now he sees a new way to make money that is much easier, so he'll go for it.

Next time he tries, he's caught. What happens now?

Under your system, we'd toss him away for several years and forget about him till he was released. We wouldn't do anything to help him or to fix his problem. He would continue to fester his anger and hatred at his situation(probably finding someone or some organization to blame in the process as is typical) until he is released. Once released, he might unleash that anger in the form of murder, at which point in your system he'd be killed. That's two lives gone.

Under MY system his problems would be addressed. He would get the education he needs, learn new jobs skills, and be set once released. He would get psychological counseling if necessary too. He would pay for his crime through unpaid service like community service activities, and once released, my system would even help find him a job. Juan would go on to become successful or at least content in whatever job he's in. That's two lives saved.

See how much better that would work?

I will protect your right to free speech even though your bigotry against christians and any one who holds an opposing view.
I don't hate Christians or think they're bad people or should be treated badly. I think their faith is ridiculous and that they needn't try to push their morality onto others, especially when it comes to governmental policy. If you want to call that bigotry, so be it, but it's not, at least not in the same way.

I had a comment on that upthread somewhere, let me dig it out:

A free society must be ready to fight with one hand tied behind it's back, because it is free. It must be willing to pay the occasional life that could have been avoided by total surveillance, because it is free. It must be willing to stand up and say "Here we are, do your worst, we aren't giving up our freedoms" to those who would attack it, because that is what it means to be free!
-- Timothy Kew (UNIverseVERSE)

I love that quote. It perfectly sums everything up.

That wouldn't be just. That'd just be sweeping the problem under the rug.

What would be just is to rehabilitate him and to make him a productive member of society again.

Not possible in all cases. Some people for the safety of society must be removed from society. You can do that by placing them in prison and not letting them out, killing them, or sending them to another planet (or maybe and undersea dome!) to start their own society where they won't be able to harm the rest of us.

*gasp* I have a cape, too! Do you think that means we're gay now?

Yes! Definitely! My girlfriend might not be too happy about this though :p

Not possible in all cases. Some people for the safety of society must be removed from society. You can do that by placing them in prison and not letting them out, killing them, or sending them to another planet (or maybe and undersea dome!) to start their own society where they won't be able to harm the rest of us.

True. Not all people can be rehabilitated...usually due to being criminals for far too long or having a mental illness or what have you.

At which point I would suggest locking them up, but with fair treatment and with the caveat that we do our best to figure out a way to rehabilitate them, to cure their mental or emotional problems that make standard rehabilitation impossible.

Yes! Definitely! My girlfriend might not be too happy about this though :p

Don't worry - now that I'm a lesbian, I can...comfort...her for you. ;)

I don't hate Christians or think they're bad people or should be treated badly. I think their faith is ridiculous and that they needn't try to push their morality onto others, especially when it comes to governmental policy. If you want to call that bigotry, so be it, but it's not, at least not in the same way.



I love that quote. It perfectly sums everything up.

Sorry my comp foze up.But any way that is what you athiests do push your belifes on us teaching evolution in school. Taking down an old moses statue that had been up there for years. Even calling CHRISTMAS xmas.

;I hope you are not one of those nuts that thinks the holocost was fake. Or that th evil neo-con zionist consperiousy to silence disent.

I rather figured that by saying a life sentence should be just that I was advocating that all life sentences be without possibility of parole.

You still run into prision overcrowding, leading to unhealthy prision environment.

and FYI, While I am for the DP, I'm for careful use of the DP. someone like this animal, IMHO, is elegible for DP, but again, not just anyone.

You liberals are very easy to predict. As soon as someone sais somthing you don't like its "racism" or "bigotry". Why then if religious people are so evil do you only attack christians? could it be you know that if you did the same to muslims you would soon be dead?

Sorry my comp foze up.But any way that is what you athiests do push your belifes on us teaching evolution in school. Taking down an old moses statue that had been up there for years. Even calling CHRISTMAS xmas.

1. Evolution is not a "belief." It is a fact. It also has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. I believe in God. I also know evolution to be a fact. My devoutly Catholic extended family knows evolution to be a fact. My Orthodox Jewish friends know evolution to be a fact.

2. I do not know what Moses statue you are talking about, but if it was erected on public land using public funds, it was unconstitutional. Talk to the founding fathers about that one.

3. "Xmas" is an abbreviation based on the Greek (I believe?) symbol for Christ. It was invented by monks, not atheists.

Sorry my comp foze up.But any way that is what you athiests do push your belifes on us teaching evolution in school. Taking down an old moses statue that had been up there for years. Even calling CHRISTMAS xmas.

What is wrong with teaching a scientific theory in science classes? Would you also have us stop teaching anything else scientific? We're not pushing "beliefs" on you! We're teaching science! For fuck's sake...

We also do like to prevent religious displays on public property, but that's display of any sort of religion, not just Christianity, and we do so because it is a violation of the separation of church and state part of the First Amendment.

As for X-mas...don't look at us for that one. No idea who came up with that.

EDIT: Hah. It originated with Christians:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xmas

Don't worry - now that I'm a lesbian, I can...comfort...her for you. ;)

I need pointers on how to comfort a woman... can you send me detailed instructions and pics to help... educate me? :p

You should see the movie "Indoctrinate u" or type brain terminal into google. That could help you out.

You liberals are very easy to predict. As soon as someone sais somthing you don't like its "racism" or "bigotry". Why then if religious people are so evil do you only attack christians? could it be you know that if you did the same to muslims you would soon be dead?

O noez1!!
Da ebil muzlims can kill uz over da interwebz111

I need pointers on how to comfort a woman... can you send me detailed instructions and pics to help... educate me? :p

I'll have to wear more "strange clothes" first. Kontor only let me know that I must be a lesbian a few minutes ago, after all.

3. "Xmas" is an abbreviation based on the Greek (I believe?) symbol for Christ. It was invented by monks, not atheists.

Yes, Greek. Like the Chi Rho symbol.

You liberals are very easy to predict. As soon as someone sais somthing you don't like its "racism" or "bigotry". Why then if religious people are so evil do you only attack christians? could it be you know that if you did the same to muslims you would soon be dead?
Actually, I find extremist Muslim activities just as abhorrant. The same with extremist Jewish activities, Buddhist activities, and any other extremist religious activities.

It is usually targeted at Christianity because Christianity is the religion that most often has extremism occurring in Western nations, since it is so prevalent.

1. Evolution is not a "belief." It is a fact. It also has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. I believe in God. I also know evolution to be a fact. My devoutly Catholic extended family knows evolution to be a fact. My Orthodox Jewish friends know evolution to be a fact.

2. I do not know what Moses statue you are talking about, but if it was erected on public land using public funds, it was unconstitutional. Talk to the founding fathers about that one.

3. "Xmas" is an abbreviation based on the Greek (I believe?) symbol for Christ. It was invented by monks, not atheists.

That is what i really dislike. People who claim to be christian but belive in evolution. I can respect an athiest for having conviction in their view. But those fence sitters are dispicable.

You can't rehabilitate someone this toxic. If he's doing things like strangling cops, kidnapping priests and feeding children to alligators, alive, you could throw all the shrinks in the world at him and he'd still be a lump of basilisk scat.

Unless you're talking about full frontal lobotomy...if they did that to this guy and others like him, yeah, I'd support an end to the death penalty. Wrap him in a straitjacket, pickle him in tranqs and leave him to ferment in an oublieyet somewhere. That'd work.

It's not about "the moral high ground" or revenge. It's self-defense. Remember what Spock said? "The lives of the many override the needs of the few, or the one." Definitely applies in this case.

Actually, I find extremist Muslim activities just as abhorrant. The same with extremist Jewish activities, Buddhist activities, and any other extremist religious activities.

It is usually targeted at Christianity because Christianity is the religion that most often has extremism occurring in Western nations, since it is so prevalent.

Yea maybe a few years ago but after 911 it's pretty much islamic in europe. So sar america hasnt had many attacks here. BUT 911 was not christian.

You liberals are very easy to predict. As soon as someone sais somthing you don't like its "racism" or "bigotry". Why then if religious people are so evil do you only attack christians? could it be you know that if you did the same to muslims you would soon be dead?

I don't tend to "attack" anyone, personally, although I do vocally dispute the positions and actions of some people. If it makes you feel better, I'll state for the record that much of Sharia law is a load of poisonous, nauseating crap. I'll also state that the positions espoused by jackasses like Fred Phelps are also poisonous, nauseating crap. Ditto, in fact, for anyone who would like to persecute people for disgusting and stupid reasons, whether those people worship Jesus, YHVH, Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

There. Happy?

;I hope you are not one of those nuts that thinks the holocost was fake. Or that th evil neo-con zionist consperiousy to silence disent.

Absolutely not. There is plenty of evidence in support of the Holocaust as an actual occurrence. Look to those who belief in something without evidence or contrary to evidence, not those of us who are rational.

What is wrong with teaching a scientific theory in science classes? Would you also have us stop teaching anything else scientific? We're not pushing "beliefs" on you! We're teaching science! For fuck's sake...

We also do like to prevent religious displays on public property, but that's display of any sort of religion, not just Christianity, and we do so because it is a violation of the separation of church and state part of the First Amendment.

As for X-mas...don't look at us for that one. No idea who came up with that.

EDIT: Hah. It originated with Christians:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xmas
if evolution is a fact why is it called a theory?

That is what i really dislike. People who claim to be christian but belive in evolution. I can respect an athiest for having conviction in their view. But those fence sitters are dispicable.

Gaaaaah.

I'm going to say this several times, so that maybe it will penetrate your skull.

Evolution has nothing to do with religion.

Evolution has nothing to do with religion.

Evolution has nothing to do with religion.

Evolution has nothing to do with religion.

Evolution has nothing to do with religion.

Evolution has nothing to do with religion.

You can't rehabilitate someone this toxic. If he's doing things like strangling cops, kidnapping priests and feeding children to alligators, alive, you could throw all the shrinks in the world at him and he'd still be a lump of basilisk scat.

Unless you're talking about full frontal lobotomy...if they did that to this guy and others like him, yeah, I'd support an end to the death penalty. Wrap him in a straitjacket, pickle him in tranqs and leave him to ferment in an oublieyet somewhere. That'd work.

It's not about "the moral high ground" or revenge. It's self-defense. Remember what Spock said? "The lives of the many override the needs of the few, or the one." Definitely applies in this case.
Uh, no. Rehabilitation hasn't ever really been attempted on the scale it should be, so we can't say whether it won't work or not till we try it, as we should for this guy.

And I would be wholly against a full frontal lobotomy. You'd be killing him just as sure as if you executed him, because all you'd do is deny him the chance to live life.

Yea maybe a few years ago but after 911 it's pretty much islamic in europe. So sar america hasnt had many attacks here. BUT 911 was not christian.

No, 9/11 wasn't. The bombings of abortion clinics was, however, as was the Oklahoma City bombing.

But that's all irrelevant to my point. I'm not just talking about obvious extremism like attacks. I'm talking about bigotry from the likes of people like Fred Phelps.

I am tiring of this debate im leaving. You can congradualte your self on driving out the "radical right-wing homophobic christian nut" But honesly you have only proved to be how you can be even more hate filled than the muslims. I hope you enjoy your Godless criminal support terrorist loving lives. Im sorry if my dissent was to "bigoted" for you to handle.

if evolution is a fact why is it called a theory?

I was hoping you'd ask.

Theory is a word used by the layman to mean hypothesis or conjecture. It means an idea one has come up with that has yet to be tested.

In science, however, a theory is as close to fact as can ever be truly achieved. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has stood up to various experiments, continued to be shown to be correct, and has large amounts of evidence in support of it, which evolution does. (Not just fossils, mind, but huge amounts of genetic/DNA evidence.)

In evolution's case, however, things are slightly more complicated. There is evolution the fact--that is, what we observe happening--and evolution the theory--that is, our explanation for why evolution the fact occurs.

I'd go into more detail but my right wrist is really beginning to hurt so I'll leave that to Poli.

if evolution is a fact why is it called a theory?

Because, IN SCIENCE, there is nothing higher than a theory. Theories include facts. A theory is something that every single piece of evidence in existence supports. If even ONE thing contradicts it, the theory is invalidated. Gravity is a theory. (And before you say anything, a "law" in science is just
"a thingie we can write as a mathematical equation." It is, if anything, LESS stringent and demonstrably true than a theory.)


*cries* Why does no one pay attention in high school science classes anymore...?

if evolution is a fact why is it called a theory?

Newsflash: you know nothing about science. Not even what the word 'theory' means.

I am tiring of this debate im leaving. You can congradualte your self on driving out the "radical right-wing homophobic christian nut" But honesly you have only proved to be how you can be even more hate filled than the muslims. I hope you enjoy your Godless criminal support terrorist loving lives. Im sorry if my dissent was to "bigoted" for you to handle.

I don't know about the others, but I wasn't trying to mock you, deride you, or chase you away. I was trying to educate you and to teach you why your view is incorrect. If you choose not listen, that is of course your choice, but please don't blame that refusal on me.

I am tiring of this debate im leaving. You can congradualte your self on driving out the "radical right-wing homophobic christian nut" But honesly you have only proved to be how you can be even more hate filled than the muslims. I hope you enjoy your Godless criminal support terrorist loving lives. Im sorry if my dissent was to "bigoted" for you to handle.

Just for the record, I would like you to note that no one is this thread called you a "radical right-wing homophobic Christian nut" but you. No one referred to "hating" you but you. No one stated a goal of "driving you out" but you. And, of course, no one threw around labels like "Godless" or "terrorist-loving" but you.

You might want to think about this.

I suspect you'd be hard pushed to find anyone who actually deals with real life criminals who agrees with you.
Then they are wrong.

Sometimes, people who have behaved like idiots in the past can get back on the straight and narrow.
I don't care. There's no moral justification for giving second chances to those who have renounced their humanity.

That's called rehabilitation, and it's a lot cheaper and more productive than just locking them up over and over again.
It doesn't matter. All that matters is what's morally right.

Good grief!

Notice to the world: do not walk across Linus and Lucy's lawn, as he seems to be saying that he would be morally justified in killing you for doing so.

Precisely.

CCCCOOMMMMMMMMMMBBBBBBOOOOOOOOOO BRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAKKKKEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRR
:cool:

Then they are wrong.

What, people who actually understand the real issues are wrong? People whose job it is to arrest, prosecute and sentence the criminals know nothing about it?


I don't care. There's no moral justification for giving second chances to those who have renounced their humanity.


Anyone who commits a crime renounces their humanity?


It doesn't matter. All that matters is what's morally right.

The criminal justive system has multiple aims. Reducing the crime rate is one of them. This is most effectively done through turning criminals into non-criminals.

Of course there is. He is a SENTIENT BEING. He has intelligence unlike any other creature on this planet. Every instance of this MUST be preserved, because when lost, it is lost forever.
And that's necessarily bad because...?

There is no afterlife, no reincarnation...no second chances. Once you die, you're dead.
As it should be.

And he cannot "forfeit his humanity." That's impossible.
Incorrect; see above.

He was clearly mentally ill in some fashion and needs help, not to be killed.
It does not change what he did, or the fact that he and he alone bears responsibility for it.

Consider this: what if that man had been a superb doctor had he not been mentally ill? What if he could have been an engineer, a scientist...someone who would really help society?

Hell, even if he'd just been your average Joe office worker, that'd still be better off, because that way he would be helping others in some fashion and be given the chance to live his life.
How is any of this relevant? What could have been is irrelevant; all that matters is what is.

That mental illness is not something he can help. He needs to be cured of it. We have a responsibility as human beings to care for each other and to help those in need, and he is in need.
No, we don't. As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved clearly and conclusively, each individual is an end in himself and properly exists solely for his own sake, to serve his own rational self-interest.

Is his crime despicable? Absolutely. Should he be punished in some manner? Of course. But punishment MUST take a backseat to rehabilitation.
Wrong. Punishment is the only thing that matters.
Indeed, I would work it into the rehabilitation in some manner...how I can't say exactly, but it could be done if we bothered trying.


Yes it is. Innocents are killed all the time by capital punishment in countries across the world, from those innocent of an accused crime
As I mentioned earlier, that is indeed a valid reason for opposing capital punishment in practice, and one that I tend to agree with--but there is still nothing wrong with it in principle.

Capital punishment is wrong, period.
Incorrect.
The whole point to punishment is to learn from your mistakes, to not repeat them and to become better for them, yes?
No--it is to simply punish, for its own sake--to give you what you deserve.

What good is capital punishment, then? All it does is kill them,
Exactly--in other words, it gives them what they deserve.
and once dead, they can't learn a damned thing.
How does that matter?


Yeah, I'm so barbaric...I don't want to have people executed by the state...I want them to be rehabilitated...quick, someone spare the children from my horrible barbarity! :rolleyes:

You oppose justice, which is the defining characteristic of civilization.

Sorry my comp foze up.But any way that is what you athiests do push your belifes on us teaching evolution in school. Taking down an old moses statue that had been up there for years. Even calling CHRISTMAS xmas.

Oh, shut it. Christian here again, and I feel that evolution is as reasonable an explanation for the beginning of the world as is creation, and much more scientifically testable (and yes, I have reconciled that with myself, but I'm not going to go into that).

As for Xmas, that was originated by Bible Scholars, try again. (The X is shorthand for the Greek letter chi)

What, people who actually understand the real issues are wrong? People whose job it is to arrest, prosecute and sentence the criminals know nothing about it?
They know the technical intricacies of their jobs, certainly.

That doesn't mean they understand the proper reason for doing it.

Anyone who commits a crime renounces their humanity?
A bona fide crime, yes.

The criminal justive system has mutiple aims.
Only one proper, legitimate aim.

Reducing the crime rate is one of them.
And that is not it.

This is most effectively done through turning criminals into non-criminals.
Since reducing the crime rate is not the proper and legitimate aim of the criminal justice system, how best to do it is irrelevant.

A bona fide crime, yes.

I broke the speed limit today. Have I renounced my humanity?


Only one proper, legitimate aim.
And that is not it.

In whose opinion?


Since reducing the crime rate is not the proper and legitimate aim of the criminal justice system, how best to do it is irrelevant.

Since you do not know the proper aims of a criminal justice system, you are wrong.

I'll have to wear more "strange clothes" first. Kontor only let me know that I must be a lesbian a few minutes ago, after all.
more?

I thought less would be the order of the day...

I'm going to throw some evidence in seeing as how I've missed the past few hours

http://www.waxingamerica.com/images/determrates3_1.gif

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/euusdeter.GIF

omg Killer Swedes!

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterbrut.gif

pretty spiffy site (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/) (sadly I can't find the one about how crime in Canada dropped after abolishing the death penalty)

Don't worry - now that I'm a lesbian, I can...comfort...her for you. ;)

That's not such a bad deal. I could soak some corks for you and you could take care of my girlfriend :D

if evolution is a fact why is it called a theory?

Because a theorem is fact and a conjecture is guess-work in mathematics.

Similarly, a theory is typically proven beyond reasonable doubt, whereas a hypothesis is an educated guess.

Learn your scientific terms before you throw them around.

I'm going to throw some evidence in seeing as how I've missed the past few hours

http://www.waxingamerica.com/images/determrates3_1.gif

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/euusdeter.GIF

omg Killer Swedes!

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterbrut.gif

pretty spiffy site (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/) (sadly I can't find the one about how crime in Canada dropped after abolishing the death penalty)

...

Wow. I did not know that.

Care to answer this, Linus and Lucy? Or will you stick to your foolishness?

...

Wow. I did not know that.

what I don't get is how it works, its one of those cases where it all seems to point to some sort of collective mood as if violence just equals more and more violence :confused:

...

Wow. I did not know that.

Care to answer this, Linus and Lucy? Or will you stick to your foolishness?

Yeah, I'm still waiting for a response as well. I'm expecting a pretty good reponse too, seeing as every justice system in every country you'd even contemplate living in is on my side...

However I can wait no longer, as I am long overdue for some guitar playing.

what I don't get is how it works, its one of those cases where it all seems to point to some sort of collective mood as if violence just equals more and more violence :confused:

Indeed. Violence begets violence. If the state sponsors killing of people, people will be more likely to consider murdering others because they'll see it at some level as more okay.

But it's not. The death penalty does not penalize, it does not prevent murders, it does not discourage crime...it does absolutely nothing it's supposed to, and now I learn that it has, in fact, the OPPOSITE EFFECT! Amazing...absolutely amazing.

what I don't get is how it works, its one of those cases where it all seems to point to some sort of collective mood as if violence just equals more and more violence :confused:

If I had to guess: If the death penalty is in force, criminals are more likely to kill witnesses to prevent identification.

SNIP

also it shows that murder rates may not be affected by ones culture, just look at how the UK has scored compared to places like Sweden even though the U.K has a far larger culture of violence

also it shows that murder rates may not be affected by ones culture, just look at how the UK has scored compared to places like Sweden even though the U.K has a far larger culture of violence

Which might say something about firearm ownership not contributing to it as well, too, which would definitely be good news.

That is what i really dislike. People who claim to be christian but belive in evolution. I can respect an athiest for having conviction in their view. But those fence sitters are dispicable.

This thread is called "Man gets death for child torture" not "Kontor's Christian trolling". If you want to continue this START A NEW THREAD.

I broke the speed limit today. Have I renounced my humanity?


Even better, what about if someone shoplifts a candy bar? Or a bona fide felony, what about someone who cheats on their taxes, do they renounce their humanity?

what I don't get is how it works, its one of those cases where it all seems to point to some sort of collective mood as if violence just equals more and more violence :confused:

Suicide by death penalty.

Which might say something about firearm ownership not contributing to it as well, too, which would definitely be good news.

scary shit happens when you look at the US death rates:

http://thegreenman.net.au/mt/archives/firearmdeaths.jpg

then again South Africa is even more scary:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42811000/gif/_42811311_firearms_deaths3_203gr.gif

there does seem to be something fishy going on especially when you look at US-Canada

http://daria.no/skole/doc/html/6099.doc-filer/image001.gif

http://www.local10.com/news/14344768/detail.html



An approapriate sentence indeed. Dumping a 5 year old girl alive into a swamp infested with alligators should have warranted a more drastic sentence in my opinion.

This also raises the question on the death penalty: When the crime is as fucked up as this, shouldn't the offender be sentenced to death? Even worse? How can you morally defend the right to life of this man?

By the simple idea that I do not want to be like him. I do not want to support an institution that does stuff like him.

Also the Idea that vengeance is not the rightful purpose of a criminal justice system but rather simply protection of the larger populace if possible.

I looked the xmas thing up apears i was wrong. I can admit that, unlike some of you.

I looked the xmas thing up apears i was wrong. I can admit that, unlike some of you.

but so far its just been a case of you being completely wrong every time no?

but so far its just been a case of you being completely wrong every time no?

Yes your absolutly right, no i wasnt.