Charlie B.69

11-21-2008, 12:41 PM

Chapman has chosen to end his life here, in order to recieve, his true penality for what he has done. Why, care for what he has chosen now, it's what awaits him in the eternal that has the final say so................

Charlie's Corner of the "World"

UKj

04-18-2006, 12:42 AM

The main arguments against the death penalty I feel are 1. DNA and other reviews show that the wrong people regularly end up on death row. 10 in 2003 I think it was. That we know about that is. 2. It does not save the money or lives imagined. There are more problems getting jurors to convict if they know the person might die. Death penalty cases are more costly. The UK did away with the death penalty after Timothy Evans was proved so conclusively guilty, only to find the ex-cop in his house that the police thought they had ruled out was a serial killer and the real culprit. That they didnt guess that is understandable and shows it is so hard to ever be 100 per cent sure. I am not against it per se. It just proves such a bad idea in practice, even without religious or moral arguments.

debbie45

03-30-2006, 7:10 AM

I believe in the death penalty, But only in cases that shows The person is a murderer and contining child molestors and if they get the death penalty, Do not keep them around for years. Do what it say, death. Do it and get it done.

debbie

kerri lynn

03-19-2006, 7:10 PM

I THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE MORE OF THE DEATH PENALTY,IN THE CASE OF A CHILD GETTING KILLED YES SIR I TOTALLY AGREE!!!!

ALWAYS IN MY PRAYERS, KERRI LYNN

TabithaS.

03-06-2006, 4:23 PM

I completely believe in the death penalty for my husband. He is a psychopath, and should never be allowed to breathe our air.

TabithaStockelman

amd55

12-05-2005, 1:00 AM

I agree!!!!!!!!!

alentz

11-22-2005, 3:59 PM

I am all for thie death penalty. The peoples lives that are taking dont not have the same rights as those who took theirs. No trial, no appeal no more visits with family.

p!mprncess

11-01-2005, 6:22 PM

granny151's only troublesome thing to say was that we are an enlightened country. The united states is one of only a few civilized countries still employing the death penalty. And given the comments pertaining to costs to house prisoners serving mandatory life sentences even after granny151's citing of the approximated costs, this country is not merely unenlightened, it suffers from an extreme propensity for and attachment to ignorance.

nanabla says death penalty deters criminals. Must not be talking about crimes of passion, committed in states of mind where one is acting in the heat of the moment and unlikely to consider the consequences of his/her actions.

tdb921 says he wants death row inmate's organs. It is this lack of respect for human life that lies behind most pro-capital punishment arguments. It is also this inconsistency in opinion that makes such arguments hypocritical by definition. If my life is my right, and a murderer takes it away, taking the murderer's life means we don't *really* value life as our own right, it means conditions apply. I desire a society in which I can expect to be protected from force or fraud imposed on my person and/or property. To expect as such requires that I afford as such. If it is a crime to impose death on my person, it is because it is a crime to impose death on ANY person. By reasoning that taking a life means sacrificing one's own life, it is implied that a person doesn't have a right to his life - but that another person, a murderer say, has the right to impose his will on my life for the low, low, bargain-rate price of his own. Interest rates do apply, to be made in payments of organ donation. How will we drown out the voices SCREAMING in caps that taking a life means one has taken one's own right to life. Who will be honest enough to charge that a murderer doesn't give up his own right to life, *Society takes his right to life away from him.

IF dick's living life AND jane decides to take dick's life -------------------------------------------- THEN jane decided to give up jane's life (in reality) society decided to take janes life to pay the price for dick's life (which means) we don't feel life is our own right, but that lives are the sole property of society

not to mention the question that if society decides certain things deem certain lives not-so-valuable-anymore, who knows what certain things murderers decide deem certain victims lives not-so-valuable? and if I decide certain things deem certain societies not-so-valuable-anymore, is hoping someone will blow them up the ONLY hope i have?

ugh. im getting random and tangent-y now, for this topic and this attempt to address the poorly and the well-formed arguments is draining, disheartening, and worthless anyway. like i said, most people aren't capable of learning the lesson. when u can't trust society's judgement, see no value in its credibility, and witness so little honor in its integrity, you continually wonder why you even trouble yourself instead of finding better, happier things to do. as for those that will CAPS me to get out if I don't like it, in advance I would like to say thank you for donations to the PIMPRNCESS SEEKING REFUGE FUND.

never leave people in the hands of fools

p!mprncess

11-01-2005, 6:22 PM

SHANNON941 says we don't kill enough people, victims and families should be allowed revenge, and there is no reason criminals should be allowed to appeal. I guess the tendency of humans to commit error, i.e. the high probability convicted criminals are innocent, is not a reason. I don't support state-sponsored killing, so I'm at a loss for what to do about the stupid people.

freelancer says its tired of paying for all those candy individuals who want to impose their form of ignorance on our society. Um, cuz its cheaper for you to impose *your* ignorance on discussion boards? Its unfortunate more people aren't aware of the court costs and legal fees of prosecuting and defending death penalty cases. I don't support state-sponsored killing, so I'm at a loss for what to do about the stupid people.

lawmanky says those who aren't released realize that wrong-doing comes with a cost. He says nothing of the public-at-large, who realize protection from those who aren't released to re-commit. While I agree it ultimately holds one responsibile for atrocities, I don't agree it is a legitimate means of confronting social dilemmas.

paralegal56 says the criminal justice system is just a form of legalized revenge. Criminal justice is more accurately described as legal recourse. Houghton Mifflin defines recourse as the act or an instance of turning or applying to a person or thing for aid or security, from the Latin word recursus, a running back. The thesaurus defines recourse as that to which one turns for help when in desperation and lists the synonyms refuge, resort, and help. Legal recourse, then, would be more about seeking protection than seeking revenge. I don't support state-sponsored killing, so I'm at a loss for what to do about the smart people adept at manipulating the stupid people.

never leave people in the hands of fools

p!mprncess

11-01-2005, 6:20 PM

Laura VDW says put a rope round the old oak tree. Hailing from Michigan, she likely bases her opinion of the Collman case on snippets she'd caught in national news segments. She also likely likes to tell herself news media serves to inform; preferring to deny - based on the advertisers who pay for commercial slots based on the products we buy - the mass communication reality that american news media serves up exactly what we ordered: murder and mayhem to entertain our violent, twisted natures. Laura VDW says to have a wonderful day. I don't support state-sponsored killing, so I'm at a loss for what to do about the stupid people.

Doris912 asks, what about the freedom to stay alive for victims if we are talking about freedom to appeal and get a fair chance. Doris912 says she is trying to be realistic. But Doris912 is not being logical. If we are talking about people who DO kill, then perhaps we can get to her questions. Since we are talking about freedom to appeal and get a fair chance, we are still talking about whether or not the persons in question HAVE killed. She commits an informal logical fallacy (mistake in reasoning) called "complex question." Like asking "where did you hide the money you stole," based on the illegitimate assumption you have even stolen the money. Doris912 says more and more children are being killed what with the waiting years and years that rights to appeal require. Doris912, to be realistic, I would suggest allowing less and less children in prisons and on death rows if this has become a problem. I don't support state-sponsored killing, so I'm at a loss for what to do about the stupid people.

never leave people in the hands of fools