Black Woman is tortured in W. VA mobile home

[quote name='NamelessMC']Why does my tax money have to pay for them getting 3 meals a day?[/QUOTE]

1) Because you are part of a collectivity, and thus *you* don't get to choose whom we do and do not feed, whom we do and do not incarcerate, and whom we do and do not execute. Judges, and to a lesser extent, prosecutors, and, mostly in movies but sometimes in real life, governors, make those decisions. The overlap caused by individual decision making would leave us with empty prisons - it would be damned easy to find *one* person who would want all prisoners executed (whether as a whole or on a case by case basis).

2) The collectivity has decided that only certain crimes are worthy of execution, and this is not one of them

3) The justice system exists in order to punish criminals, prevent future offenses from them and the public, and to rehabilitate criminals. NOT, however, to satisfy or entertain the public. Justice can still be justice and not be what you want it to be. Again, collectivity.

4) Indirectly you can change all this if you like, but only in the politicians you successfully vote into office.

[quote name='slidecage']its been like 2 + year they should just take the SOB out and shoot him in the street. maybe if we went back to the old west ways you wouldnt see all of this bullshit going on[/QUOTE]

Based on what evidence? All those peace-loving beatniks living in the "wild west" period. And the lack of racism then, too.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']4) Indirectly you can change all this if you like, but only in the politicians you successfully vote into office.[/QUOTE]
Lies.

The Juggernaut merely makes it appear that we have a voice.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']1) Because you are part of a collectivity, and thus *you* don't get to choose whom we do and do not feed, whom we do and do not incarcerate, and whom we do and do not execute. Judges, and to a lesser extent, prosecutors, and, mostly in movies but sometimes in real life, governors, make those decisions. The overlap caused by individual decision making would leave us with empty prisons - it would be damned easy to find *one* person who would want all prisoners executed (whether as a whole or on a case by case basis).

2) The collectivity has decided that only certain crimes are worthy of execution, and this is not one of them

3) The justice system exists in order to punish criminals, prevent future offenses from them and the public, and to rehabilitate criminals. NOT, however, to satisfy or entertain the public. Justice can still be justice and not be what you want it to be. Again, collectivity.

4) Indirectly you can change all this if you like, but only in the politicians you successfully vote into office.



Based on what evidence? All those peace-loving beatniks living in the "wild west" period. And the lack of racism then, too.[/QUOTE]


im pretty sure if someone killed his wife and 3 children. then raped and killed a 10 year old girl you would been hung very quickly back then , instead of today where people think he should of released cause being without his family is punishment . its been 2 years and every time he plays another card

First he said he was a mexican cit. and couldnt be tried. when that card filed he played he was retarded. then when that card failed he played the race card again.

local est put his trial at over 200,000 bucks for an illegal. just take the sob out to the courthouse and hang them. Now he knows that he wont face the death sentace he dropped all of his cards and said he did it. SOB
 
[quote name='slidecage']im pretty sure[/QUOTE]

Let's just stop right there and ignore the rest, because here's where you're wrong. And, since you're wrong here, there's no need for me to translate the rest of your post into English, and then a cogent thought, and then actually bother with refuting it (much like we don't let art critics into kindergarten on "hand-trace turkey" day for the same reason).
 
[quote name='Kayden']I fully agree, but all those hybrid driving peace mongers have some decent points. Who's to say who should die? I used to think that line is bullshit-rhetoric, but really, if you think they should all die, could you be the one to kill them all? Even if you could (which I doubt), dozens of people have to watch every execution, could they stomach all that death? If you're unaffected by that much death and so willing to kill, doesn't that make you just as depraved as the murderers? Would we be better off without them? Yeah, but would you be better off killing them? And what if someone was later found innocent of those heinous crimes? Would you kill one innocent just to stop a dozen guilty?[/quote]

The day you start treating human life at value of chance, is the day you fail to understand how survival works.

We're in a downward spiral, and you, me and everyone else on this planet is nothing more than another animal with an advanced way of thinking. But how advanced is it really? Even in wild life if a member of a pack/herd starts doing things hazardous to the pack/herd, he/she is killed, possibly eaten but removed from the pack/herd.

Animals can accomplish what we can't? Why? We're an animal just like them, we're a mammal, a species. Even if you believe in God, he made us nothing more than another creature.

You have to accomplish and steer humanity toward survival above all or else you're moving in the wrong direction. You say one innocent life is worth more than 12 guilty lives? What about all the innocent life the other 12 guilty lives take? So now we're supposed to let 12 murderers walk the streets to protect the innocence of one person? Mathematically that doesn't add up.

Mindstates like that are why we're in such a hole, because we let so much bad roam the streets for the sake of so little good.

I'm not asking for the amount of evidence needed to make someone guilty or innocent change or even the legal methods of approaching it. In fact, little changes I propose could change this country exponentially over even a small period of 5 years:

1) Make defense attorneys operate under the same practice as prosecution attorneys. No extra money by way of the suspect. If you're a murder suspect, you get top attorney. Law shouldn't be a capitalist economy. I think it's wrong that defense attorneys have their performance evaluated into cost. That's an immediate opportunity for crime syndicates and rich people to commit crimes. Sure, prosecution attorneys also make a lot of money if they're good, but I never said a defense attorney can't make good money. I merely said it depends on his performance. If he's good, his LAW office can pay him a lot to handle big cases. Over-all, Kobe and OJ should get the same defense lawyer as any other rapist or murder suspect.

2) Yes, kill more guilty. Bottom line, we're spending more money than we can afford incarcerating criminals and we either end up letting them go early for "good behavior" or the justice system is too loose to prevent them from having to do hard time. Murder proven beyond most reasonable doubt should be a capital crime punishable by death. The only exceptions should be self defense or extreme circumstances that CAN be proven in court. For example, if some guy's going to kill your daughter and you know about it but cops can't do anything and your only way of protecting her is by killing him and it can be PROVEN, then you should get away with it or get some leniency.

3) No more insanity or racial cards. I don't care if you're brown, black, white, orange, yellow or purple. Do the crime, do the time.

If criminals feel like people Mykevermin are no longer a majority in political mindstate, they will be less encouraged to commit crimes.

With guys like Mykevermin around, most people with criminal temptation or intent often don't see any weight against them to not commit crimes.
 
Give me evidence that proves deterrence works before talking about things you have no idea about.

In the meantime, show me where the points I made are akin to a "soft on crime" approach. Because I suggested that our justice system does not, as of yet, execute people who torture and kidnap, but do not murder? That philosophy isn't exactly radical, friend.

On top of everything else, you have to answer me this question (and no googling, either - you'll know if you cheated): what is the maximum sentence for felonious assault w/ intent to commit murder in your state? In other states?

Oh, you didn't know, did you (I bet very, very, very, very few of you knew)? Guess what? I don't know, either. BUT THAT'S THE POINT. You act as if the laws on the books matter to people when they make decisions to commit crimes. However, when people do not know what those penalties are, then what is actually on the books is meaningless - and if you're left still trying to argue the "increase the punishment to reduce crime" ideology (and thus still a fool), then you're only left with the notion that it is NOT the actual laws/penalties that matter, but the PERCEPTION of the laws/penalties that matter. Then your entire "make punishments harsher" argument is a fool's errand, because you're affecting the laws, and not the perception of the law (directly and in the long-run, at any rate).

Consider the case of "three strikes and you're out" laws, which had ZERO statistical impact on the length of time served by criminals, but made the public feel good, because it seemed like the government was trying to "take charge" of crime. Meaningless semantics that comfort the public, but do nothing pragmatically. Pure Machiavellian mechanics at work, whether intentional or not.

Most importantly, "guys like me" have been researching crime for decades (though, lamentably, not influencing policy to a great degree - there's a funny anecdote about politicians pandering to dunderheaded dolts like you who think we need to lop off the head of every criminal ever, but I'll save that for later). Nevertheless, after 15 years of punitive policy and a 3X increase in the prison population, the crime rate began to decline in the 1990's once rehabilitation and therapy programs began to be offered again - unlike in the 70's and 80's, where increasingly punitive policies were coordinated with increases in crime (particularly in the drug economy).

So, you were saying...?
 
Nameless, do you really think that people think "Damn, I can kill this guy cuz I'll only get life!"

I seriously doubt that there is a significant number of people who would commit a crime when they'd get life, but wouldn't if they would get the death penalty. Regardless of the fact that I doubt most of the people committing murders are thinking about the penalties at all when they do it.

Since by the estimates that I've seen (from the justice department) violent crime has been going down for a while, I don't see what your point is anyway. Apparently it's better than it has been, and murder has always been a small portion of violent crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top