elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
If you are pro-death penalty, please read this article
- Thread starter elprincipe
- Start date
Whew! I feel like a just ran a freaking marathon!
Sadly, I don't think the article will change anyone's mind who are for the pro-death penalty.
They will simply write it off as a "casualty of war". To them, one life is nothing. They have no problem killing one innocent if five true criminals are put to rest.
I think we should reduce in the prison population by only putting real criminals (rapist, murderers, ect.) in prison, and not the small time crooks. ( Jail time for weed possession? Really?)
Personally, I'm against all death penalties.
But, then again, I'm just a moral-less atheist.
Sadly, I don't think the article will change anyone's mind who are for the pro-death penalty.
They will simply write it off as a "casualty of war". To them, one life is nothing. They have no problem killing one innocent if five true criminals are put to rest.
I think we should reduce in the prison population by only putting real criminals (rapist, murderers, ect.) in prison, and not the small time crooks. ( Jail time for weed possession? Really?)
Personally, I'm against all death penalties.
But, then again, I'm just a moral-less atheist.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
Come on, everyone knows that Texas has the worst judiciary system in the country. Even the Simpsons made a joke about it.
This really has little to do with capital punishment. If the guy was locked up for life for a bogus charge, the travesty would be the same.
This really has little to do with capital punishment. If the guy was locked up for life for a bogus charge, the travesty would be the same.
I agree, the entire crime-and-punishment system needs to be reorganized.
As per this situation - there are many of those who would argue that "who cares if a few innocents people die because of government-controlled health care. people are dying now!". Is this much different? Sure, a few innocents might get executed, but people are being killed by criminals now. Maybe we'll save more lives with the death penalty in the long run. Maybe we'll save more lives with government health care in the long run. So long as less innocents die with than without, we're doing good, right?
As per this situation - there are many of those who would argue that "who cares if a few innocents people die because of government-controlled health care. people are dying now!". Is this much different? Sure, a few innocents might get executed, but people are being killed by criminals now. Maybe we'll save more lives with the death penalty in the long run. Maybe we'll save more lives with government health care in the long run. So long as less innocents die with than without, we're doing good, right?
I am personally in favor of the death penalty. To me, there are some people out there that absolutely should not continue to live after committing the crimes that they have. The answer to the high cost as compared to life in prison is to limit the appeals process. If you get sentenced to death, then you get a year to sit in jail and meet with your lawyers or read your law books or whatever and come up with your one big argument and make your appeal. If you can't come up with one, or if it's not a compelling argument, then that's it, you should be put away within 30 days.
While there is always the possibility of innocent people being executed, as far as I'm aware, it hasn't occurred as of yet, at least not in any case that has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. It's not as if we're just sentencing anyone and everyone to death. To receive that sentence, you need to be proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt of some pretty heinous stuff, so for a person to be convicted of a crime that horrible, and receive the death sentence for it would require a whole lot of unlucky coincidences for that person to have that much evidence against him.
If you want to abolish the death penalty however, that's fine too, but we need to reform the prison system in that case. You commit murder, rape, etc., then you will serve your sentence out in a maximum security prison, you get one cell to yourself, where you get to sit for 24 hours a day, maybe a copy of the bible or something, a TV that only picks up C-SPAN and PBS, and that's it. None of this time to exercise, time in the library, time on the internet, etc. etc. If you're in prison for life, than that's it.
While there is always the possibility of innocent people being executed, as far as I'm aware, it hasn't occurred as of yet, at least not in any case that has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. It's not as if we're just sentencing anyone and everyone to death. To receive that sentence, you need to be proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt of some pretty heinous stuff, so for a person to be convicted of a crime that horrible, and receive the death sentence for it would require a whole lot of unlucky coincidences for that person to have that much evidence against him.
If you want to abolish the death penalty however, that's fine too, but we need to reform the prison system in that case. You commit murder, rape, etc., then you will serve your sentence out in a maximum security prison, you get one cell to yourself, where you get to sit for 24 hours a day, maybe a copy of the bible or something, a TV that only picks up C-SPAN and PBS, and that's it. None of this time to exercise, time in the library, time on the internet, etc. etc. If you're in prison for life, than that's it.
[quote name='UncleBob']I agree, the entire crime-and-punishment system needs to be reorganized.
As per this situation - there are many of those who would argue that "who cares if a few innocents people die because of government-controlled health care. people are dying now!". Is this much different? Sure, a few innocents might get executed, but people are being killed by criminals now. Maybe we'll save more lives with the death penalty in the long run. Maybe we'll save more lives with government health care in the long run. So long as less innocents die with than without, we're doing good, right?[/QUOTE]
Your assuming that government run health-care will kill people?
I don't want to discuss health-care here, I'm sure there is another thread for that.
But the thing is, we can still imprison the death-penalty inmates. Then, they won't kill innocents. We don't have to kill them to prevent them from doing crimes.
As per this situation - there are many of those who would argue that "who cares if a few innocents people die because of government-controlled health care. people are dying now!". Is this much different? Sure, a few innocents might get executed, but people are being killed by criminals now. Maybe we'll save more lives with the death penalty in the long run. Maybe we'll save more lives with government health care in the long run. So long as less innocents die with than without, we're doing good, right?[/QUOTE]
Your assuming that government run health-care will kill people?
I don't want to discuss health-care here, I'm sure there is another thread for that.
But the thing is, we can still imprison the death-penalty inmates. Then, they won't kill innocents. We don't have to kill them to prevent them from doing crimes.
[quote name='spmahn']While there is always the possibility of innocent people being executed, as far as I'm aware, it hasn't occurred as of yet, at least not in any case that has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.[/QUOTE]
Since the death penalty became legal again in this country?
Are you willing to just ignore the dozens on death row exonerated not all that long ago due to DNA showing them to be innocent?
Since the death penalty became legal again in this country?
Are you willing to just ignore the dozens on death row exonerated not all that long ago due to DNA showing them to be innocent?
[quote name='spmahn']I am personally in favor of the death penalty. To me, there are some people out there that absolutely should not continue to live after committing the crimes that they have. The answer to the high cost as compared to life in prison is to limit the appeals process. If you get sentenced to death, then you get a year to sit in jail and meet with your lawyers or read your law books or whatever and come up with your one big argument and make your appeal. If you can't come up with one, or if it's not a compelling argument, then that's it, you should be put away within 30 days.
While there is always the possibility of innocent people being executed, as far as I'm aware, it hasn't occurred as of yet, at least not in any case that has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. It's not as if we're just sentencing anyone and everyone to death. To receive that sentence, you need to be proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt of some pretty heinous stuff, so for a person to be convicted of a crime that horrible, and receive the death sentence for it would require a whole lot of unlucky coincidences for that person to have that much evidence against him.
If you want to abolish the death penalty however, that's fine too, but we need to reform the prison system in that case. You commit murder, rape, etc., then you will serve your sentence out in a maximum security prison, you get one cell to yourself, where you get to sit for 24 hours a day, maybe a copy of the bible or something, a TV that only picks up C-SPAN and PBS, and that's it. None of this time to exercise, time in the library, time on the internet, etc. etc. If you're in prison for life, than that's it.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure that at least one innocent has been executed. While it's an assumption, I'm just playing the odds.
But I just couldn't imagine being that innocent person being executed. All it takes is being in the wrong place at the wrong time. You probably only get one chance at life...
But I totally agree with your last statement. Instead, screw the TV. Give them a cart full of books. Maybe a newspaper.
While there is always the possibility of innocent people being executed, as far as I'm aware, it hasn't occurred as of yet, at least not in any case that has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. It's not as if we're just sentencing anyone and everyone to death. To receive that sentence, you need to be proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt of some pretty heinous stuff, so for a person to be convicted of a crime that horrible, and receive the death sentence for it would require a whole lot of unlucky coincidences for that person to have that much evidence against him.
If you want to abolish the death penalty however, that's fine too, but we need to reform the prison system in that case. You commit murder, rape, etc., then you will serve your sentence out in a maximum security prison, you get one cell to yourself, where you get to sit for 24 hours a day, maybe a copy of the bible or something, a TV that only picks up C-SPAN and PBS, and that's it. None of this time to exercise, time in the library, time on the internet, etc. etc. If you're in prison for life, than that's it.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure that at least one innocent has been executed. While it's an assumption, I'm just playing the odds.
But I just couldn't imagine being that innocent person being executed. All it takes is being in the wrong place at the wrong time. You probably only get one chance at life...
But I totally agree with your last statement. Instead, screw the TV. Give them a cart full of books. Maybe a newspaper.
People will die due to decisions made within a system of health care ran by the government. People will die due to decisions made outside of a system of health care ran by the government. Either way, it is a fact and cannot be debated. The idea is to come up with a system with the least amount of unnecessary deaths.
Locking away dangerous inmates for life is not a perfect solution either. What happens when that inmate's cellmate was actually innocent and they get shanked? What happens if the dangerous inmate escapes? Gets paroled somehow? What happens to all the money being spent on this guy that could be going to help pay for one more government-rationed surgery to save one more actually innocent life?
Some people don't want to admit it, but it's all a balancing game. What choices can we make to minimize the loss of innocent lives?
Locking away dangerous inmates for life is not a perfect solution either. What happens when that inmate's cellmate was actually innocent and they get shanked? What happens if the dangerous inmate escapes? Gets paroled somehow? What happens to all the money being spent on this guy that could be going to help pay for one more government-rationed surgery to save one more actually innocent life?
Some people don't want to admit it, but it's all a balancing game. What choices can we make to minimize the loss of innocent lives?
[quote name='Msut77']Since the death penalty became legal again in this country?
Are you willing to just ignore the dozens on death row exonerated not all that long ago due to DNA showing them to be innocent?[/QUOTE]
While I'm certainly not defending putting innocent people on death row, what I would like to know is how a person actually gets convicted of a crime they did not commit, unless they were in some way connected to the crime. It's not like random people on the street are being convicted of crimes against people they've never met in the life, are they? It seems to me that while a lot of people may be exonerated from actually having committed the crime, that doesn't mean they're innocent. Honestly, I'm not arguing anything here, I'm legitimately interested in this and would like some more info.
I would think that in many cases it may be that Guy A may have been exonerated from committing a crime thanks to DNA evidence, but the reason he was convicted in the first place is because he was directly connected to the actual crime in some way, and they never actually caught the person who committed the crime, but since Guy A's fingerprints are all over the evidence, he gets convicted. Every time I read stories about people being exonerated, they always paint it as a black and white picture, but I'm skeptical about that. Am I wrong?
Are you willing to just ignore the dozens on death row exonerated not all that long ago due to DNA showing them to be innocent?[/QUOTE]
While I'm certainly not defending putting innocent people on death row, what I would like to know is how a person actually gets convicted of a crime they did not commit, unless they were in some way connected to the crime. It's not like random people on the street are being convicted of crimes against people they've never met in the life, are they? It seems to me that while a lot of people may be exonerated from actually having committed the crime, that doesn't mean they're innocent. Honestly, I'm not arguing anything here, I'm legitimately interested in this and would like some more info.
I would think that in many cases it may be that Guy A may have been exonerated from committing a crime thanks to DNA evidence, but the reason he was convicted in the first place is because he was directly connected to the actual crime in some way, and they never actually caught the person who committed the crime, but since Guy A's fingerprints are all over the evidence, he gets convicted. Every time I read stories about people being exonerated, they always paint it as a black and white picture, but I'm skeptical about that. Am I wrong?
[quote name='Msut77']Since the death penalty became legal again in this country?
Are you willing to just ignore the dozens on death row exonerated not all that long ago due to DNA showing them to be innocent?[/QUOTE]
Um... doesn't the fact that they were exonerated kinda go against your argument?
But, anywhoo, I'm rather against the death penalty except in the most extreme, airtight cases. As I said earlier, our crime-and-punishment system needs to be re-worked. Restitution should be the primary solution for most cases. I mean, it doesn't do anyone any good for Madoff to sit in jail for 150 years. Jail should be solely for criminals that are a danger to society. Capital punishment should be solely for criminals that have committed the most heinous of crimes (mostly murders) and are beyond reform - but, as I said, only in absolute airtight cases. And even then, I'd probably go for life vs. death penalty.
However, I have no problem with giving convicted felons the option of life without parole or being put to death.
Are you willing to just ignore the dozens on death row exonerated not all that long ago due to DNA showing them to be innocent?[/QUOTE]
Um... doesn't the fact that they were exonerated kinda go against your argument?
But, anywhoo, I'm rather against the death penalty except in the most extreme, airtight cases. As I said earlier, our crime-and-punishment system needs to be re-worked. Restitution should be the primary solution for most cases. I mean, it doesn't do anyone any good for Madoff to sit in jail for 150 years. Jail should be solely for criminals that are a danger to society. Capital punishment should be solely for criminals that have committed the most heinous of crimes (mostly murders) and are beyond reform - but, as I said, only in absolute airtight cases. And even then, I'd probably go for life vs. death penalty.
However, I have no problem with giving convicted felons the option of life without parole or being put to death.
[quote name='UncleBob']
What happens when that inmate's cellmate was actually innocent and they get shanked? [/QUOTE]
So we should just shank them now?
I think we are undermining the value of a life. While I would gladly sacrifice myself if I KNEW that is was going toward a good cause.
The thing is, we don't have to sacrifice that surgery because of a killer being in jail. We just have to balance the budget, cut back in other, less important places, like, say, the drug war.
We can have our cake and eat it too. We just need to figure out how to do it first.
I know, I'm an optimistic twat
What happens when that inmate's cellmate was actually innocent and they get shanked? [/QUOTE]
So we should just shank them now?
I think we are undermining the value of a life. While I would gladly sacrifice myself if I KNEW that is was going toward a good cause.
The thing is, we don't have to sacrifice that surgery because of a killer being in jail. We just have to balance the budget, cut back in other, less important places, like, say, the drug war.
We can have our cake and eat it too. We just need to figure out how to do it first.
I know, I'm an optimistic twat
[quote name='spmahn']While I'm certainly not defending putting innocent people on death row, what I would like to know is how a person actually gets convicted of a crime they did not commit, unless they were in some way connected to the crime. It's not like random people on the street are being convicted of crimes against people they've never met in the life, are they? It seems to me that while a lot of people may be exonerated from actually having committed the crime, that doesn't mean they're innocent. Honestly, I'm not arguing anything here, I'm legitimately interested in this and would like some more info.
It seems to me that in many cases it may be that Guy A may have been exonerated from committing a crime thanks to DNA evidence, but the reason he was convicted in the first place is because he was directly connected to the actual crime in some way, and they never actually caught the person who committed the crime, but since Guy A's fingerprints are all over the evidence, he gets convicted. Every time I read stories about people being exonerated, they always paint it as a black and white picture, but I'm skeptical about that. Am I wrong?[/QUOTE]
I take it since you didn't answer my question you were qualifying it as just after the death penalty was brought back.
We all know why.
How much do you know about the Central Park Jogger case?
It seems to me that in many cases it may be that Guy A may have been exonerated from committing a crime thanks to DNA evidence, but the reason he was convicted in the first place is because he was directly connected to the actual crime in some way, and they never actually caught the person who committed the crime, but since Guy A's fingerprints are all over the evidence, he gets convicted. Every time I read stories about people being exonerated, they always paint it as a black and white picture, but I'm skeptical about that. Am I wrong?[/QUOTE]
I take it since you didn't answer my question you were qualifying it as just after the death penalty was brought back.
We all know why.
How much do you know about the Central Park Jogger case?
So, we cut back on "the drug war", then some guy does a drive-by on some other guy selling on his street corner and some innocent kids get caught in the cross fire.
So, with your plan, we've got one potentially innocent, probably guilty murderer spending his life in jail, two drug dealers free on the streets, three dead, innocent kids and someone with a patched up heart eating Big Macs.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. We need to balance the budget and pay off our debt - but until we're willing to admit that it's a balancing act and that there are casualties in war and in peace, we're never going to win.
So, with your plan, we've got one potentially innocent, probably guilty murderer spending his life in jail, two drug dealers free on the streets, three dead, innocent kids and someone with a patched up heart eating Big Macs.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. We need to balance the budget and pay off our debt - but until we're willing to admit that it's a balancing act and that there are casualties in war and in peace, we're never going to win.
[quote name='UncleBob']So, we cut back on "the drug war", then some guy does a drive-by on some other guy selling on his street corner and some innocent kids get caught in the cross fire.
So, with your plan, we've got one potentially innocent, probably guilty murderer spending his life in jail, two drug dealers free on the streets, three dead, innocent kids and someone with a patched up heart eating Big Macs.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. We need to balance the budget and pay off our debt - but until we're willing to admit that it's a balancing act and that there are casualties in war and in peace, we're never going to win.[/QUOTE]
Sorry. I should have clarified. I'm not talking about hard drugs. Keep that shit away from me.
What I meant was "pot". And the tax the gov't can collect if it was legalized.
Also, all the money that's spent advertising to kids. I remember going into the arcades and seeing the FBI "Don't do drugs" warning. What we need is good parenting. Sure, kids will be rebellious (I was at one point), but I was a smart rebel. Probably because I was raised so well.
But once again. Another topic that is not the main topic. My bad.
So, with your plan, we've got one potentially innocent, probably guilty murderer spending his life in jail, two drug dealers free on the streets, three dead, innocent kids and someone with a patched up heart eating Big Macs.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. We need to balance the budget and pay off our debt - but until we're willing to admit that it's a balancing act and that there are casualties in war and in peace, we're never going to win.[/QUOTE]
Sorry. I should have clarified. I'm not talking about hard drugs. Keep that shit away from me.
What I meant was "pot". And the tax the gov't can collect if it was legalized.
Also, all the money that's spent advertising to kids. I remember going into the arcades and seeing the FBI "Don't do drugs" warning. What we need is good parenting. Sure, kids will be rebellious (I was at one point), but I was a smart rebel. Probably because I was raised so well.
But once again. Another topic that is not the main topic. My bad.
[quote name='Msut77']I take it since you didn't answer my question you were qualifying it as just after the death penalty was brought back.
We all know why.
How much do you know about the Central Park Jogger case?[/QUOTE]
I just read over the case quickly, so it takes an overzealous prosecutor, dumb defendants, and a bad jury? Again, I don't really understand how all these forces could possibly align in any sort of happenstance scenario, without at least SOME wrong doing by someone somewhere. In this instance, it seems as though the kids convicted were in the wrong place during a time when they knew they probably shouldn't have been, probably did commit some sort of crime against someone, even if it wasn't the one they were convicted of, and stupidly gave false confessions.
We all know why.
How much do you know about the Central Park Jogger case?[/QUOTE]
I just read over the case quickly, so it takes an overzealous prosecutor, dumb defendants, and a bad jury? Again, I don't really understand how all these forces could possibly align in any sort of happenstance scenario, without at least SOME wrong doing by someone somewhere. In this instance, it seems as though the kids convicted were in the wrong place during a time when they knew they probably shouldn't have been, probably did commit some sort of crime against someone, even if it wasn't the one they were convicted of, and stupidly gave false confessions.
[quote name='amill007']Sorry. I should have clarified. I'm not talking about hard drugs. Keep that shit away from me.
What I meant was "pot". And the tax the gov't can collect if it was legalized.
Also, all the money that's spent advertising to kids. I remember going into the arcades and seeing the FBI "Don't do drugs" warning. What we need is good parenting. Sure, kids will be rebellious (I was at one point), but I was a smart rebel. Probably because I was raised so well.
But once again. Another topic that is not the main topic. My bad.[/QUOTE]
So *then* some guy goes in to rob the pot store (just like people rob liquor stores now), gets antsy, shoots the guy behind the counter and runs out the front door, shooting some other guy that was just coming in to buy a Pepsi. Plus, the drug lords just lost all their illegal income from selling pot, so they've amped up the hard stuff and are doing some crazy turf wars where innocent children get caught in the cross fire. And the advertisers are out of jobs, get desperate and start robbing pot stores, where they shoot clerks and other customers.
You just leave a trail of bodies wherever you go, don't you?
I tease, of course - but there are many angles to look at before determining the best course of action. Of course, we can't just stand around and debate all day, eventually, we have to act... and hope for the best...
What I meant was "pot". And the tax the gov't can collect if it was legalized.
Also, all the money that's spent advertising to kids. I remember going into the arcades and seeing the FBI "Don't do drugs" warning. What we need is good parenting. Sure, kids will be rebellious (I was at one point), but I was a smart rebel. Probably because I was raised so well.
But once again. Another topic that is not the main topic. My bad.[/QUOTE]
So *then* some guy goes in to rob the pot store (just like people rob liquor stores now), gets antsy, shoots the guy behind the counter and runs out the front door, shooting some other guy that was just coming in to buy a Pepsi. Plus, the drug lords just lost all their illegal income from selling pot, so they've amped up the hard stuff and are doing some crazy turf wars where innocent children get caught in the cross fire. And the advertisers are out of jobs, get desperate and start robbing pot stores, where they shoot clerks and other customers.
You just leave a trail of bodies wherever you go, don't you?
I tease, of course - but there are many angles to look at before determining the best course of action. Of course, we can't just stand around and debate all day, eventually, we have to act... and hope for the best...
[quote name='UncleBob']So *then* some guy goes in to rob the pot store (just like people rob liquor stores now), gets antsy, shoots the guy behind the counter and runs out the front door, shooting some other guy that was just coming in to buy a Pepsi. Plus, the drug lords just lost all their illegal income from selling pot, so they've amped up the hard stuff and are doing some crazy turf wars where innocent children get caught in the cross fire. And the advertisers are out of jobs, get desperate and start robbing pot stores, where they shoot clerks and other customers.
You just leave a trail of bodies wherever you go, don't you?
I tease, of course - but there are many angles to look at before determining the best course of action. Of course, we can't just stand around and debate all day, eventually, we have to act... and hope for the best...[/QUOTE]
Haha. O.K. I quit. I'm going back to my cave to whip up some more of my "perfect" ideas.
You just leave a trail of bodies wherever you go, don't you?
I tease, of course - but there are many angles to look at before determining the best course of action. Of course, we can't just stand around and debate all day, eventually, we have to act... and hope for the best...[/QUOTE]
Haha. O.K. I quit. I'm going back to my cave to whip up some more of my "perfect" ideas.
[quote name='spmahn']I just read over the case quickly, so it takes an overzealous prosecutor, dumb defendants, and a bad jury? Again, I don't really understand how all these forces could possibly align in any sort of happenstance scenario, without at least SOME wrong doing by someone somewhere.[/quote]
You "not understanding" something isn't an argument.
Neither is stating they probably did something wrong either.
You used the word "overzealous" before, objectively the word to use would be lying.
Lies were told to get what were basically a bunch of kids to confess and lies by omission were committed when prosecutors hid the truth about what they did know about the DNA evidence.
If the circumstances were slightly different they very well could have ended up on death row.
Using your McExecution plan they would have been put to death.
I don't expect to change your mind, but for you to continue blithely asserting some of the things you have is more of an argument why the death penalty should be done away with then for keeping it.
You "not understanding" something isn't an argument.
Neither is stating they probably did something wrong either.
You used the word "overzealous" before, objectively the word to use would be lying.
Lies were told to get what were basically a bunch of kids to confess and lies by omission were committed when prosecutors hid the truth about what they did know about the DNA evidence.
If the circumstances were slightly different they very well could have ended up on death row.
Using your McExecution plan they would have been put to death.
I don't expect to change your mind, but for you to continue blithely asserting some of the things you have is more of an argument why the death penalty should be done away with then for keeping it.
[quote name='Msut77']You "not understanding" something isn't an argument.
Neither is stating they probably did something wrong either.[/QUOTE]
I'm not making any sort of argument at all, I'm interpreting facts.
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/crimelaw/features/n_7836/index1.html
These kids were in the park on a night when it was well known that gang related activity would be occurring. Numerous assaults DID occur that night.
If I'm making any sort of argument at all, it would be that I don't believe that someone can be convicted of a crime entirely because of happenstance situations. In this case, there is compelling evidence that while the kids didn't commit the crime in question, they A. Shouldn't have been in the park that evening and B. Could have been involved in the other assaults that did occur that night. I would like to see a case where someone is convicted of a crime that they had absolutely zero connection to and later exonerated. Regardless, even if it were to occur, then it's not a problem with the justice system, it's a problem with the legal process.
Neither is stating they probably did something wrong either.[/QUOTE]
I'm not making any sort of argument at all, I'm interpreting facts.
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/crimelaw/features/n_7836/index1.html
These kids were in the park on a night when it was well known that gang related activity would be occurring. Numerous assaults DID occur that night.
If I'm making any sort of argument at all, it would be that I don't believe that someone can be convicted of a crime entirely because of happenstance situations. In this case, there is compelling evidence that while the kids didn't commit the crime in question, they A. Shouldn't have been in the park that evening and B. Could have been involved in the other assaults that did occur that night. I would like to see a case where someone is convicted of a crime that they had absolutely zero connection to and later exonerated. Regardless, even if it were to occur, then it's not a problem with the justice system, it's a problem with the legal process.
crunchb3rry
CAGiversary!
If we stopped throwing pot smokers in prisons, you'd be able to afford to keep the psychos locked up for life instead of killing them to free up a cell. That's where all the money is wasted, housing people any other nation would not throw in jail to begin with.
[quote name='crunchb3rry']If we stopped throwing pot smokers in prisons, you'd be able to afford to keep the psychos locked up for life instead of killing them to free up a cell. That's where all the money is wasted, housing people any other nation would not throw in jail to begin with.[/QUOTE]
Except people arent in jail simply for smoking pot (and yes, I know there are likely a handful of unjust cases out there of people who are in jail for that reason, but I'm speaking of the majority of cases). People go to jail for selling pot and other drugs, or possesing enough of it that they are convicted of intent to sell, but that also occurs in every country, even those with more liberal drug laws.
Except people arent in jail simply for smoking pot (and yes, I know there are likely a handful of unjust cases out there of people who are in jail for that reason, but I'm speaking of the majority of cases). People go to jail for selling pot and other drugs, or possesing enough of it that they are convicted of intent to sell, but that also occurs in every country, even those with more liberal drug laws.
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='UncleBob']Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. We need to balance the budget and pay off our debt - but until we're willing to admit that it's a balancing act and that there are casualties in war and in peace, we're never going to win.[/QUOTE]
You give me the budget of war to make peace and I promise you there'd be no need to balance.
You give me the budget of war to make peace and I promise you there'd be no need to balance.
fullmetalfan720
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
The state should not be able to execute anyone.
[quote name='spmahn']I'm not making any sort of argument at all[/quote]
I noticed.
That is something you aren't doing either.
Trisha Meili was in the park that night as well, using your logic she would have been rounded up and questioned as well. Although she did have an alibi.
One "could" have been "involved" with "something" and still have "zero connection" with anything specific.
Assuming you aren't using the phrase "zero connection" to mean same continent where the crime took place.
I noticed.
That is something you aren't doing either.
Trisha Meili was in the park that night as well, using your logic she would have been rounded up and questioned as well. Although she did have an alibi.
One "could" have been "involved" with "something" and still have "zero connection" with anything specific.
Assuming you aren't using the phrase "zero connection" to mean same continent where the crime took place.
Last edited by a moderator:
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='spmahn']I am personally in favor of the death penalty. To me, there are some people out there that absolutely should not continue to live after committing the crimes that they have. The answer to the high cost as compared to life in prison is to limit the appeals process. If you get sentenced to death, then you get a year to sit in jail and meet with your lawyers or read your law books or whatever and come up with your one big argument and make your appeal. If you can't come up with one, or if it's not a compelling argument, then that's it, you should be put away within 30 days.
While there is always the possibility of innocent people being executed, as far as I'm aware, it hasn't occurred as of yet, at least not in any case that has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. It's not as if we're just sentencing anyone and everyone to death. To receive that sentence, you need to be proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt of some pretty heinous stuff, so for a person to be convicted of a crime that horrible, and receive the death sentence for it would require a whole lot of unlucky coincidences for that person to have that much evidence against him.[/quote]
What if the argument becomes one of ineffectiveness? There's no need to mischaracterize the arguments of those against the death penalty.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/det...alty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates
I don't think you know very much about the prison system in the united states, and I think you misunderstand what "justice" is supposed to be.
EDIT: Has anyone other than the elp and willardhaven read the new yorker article? nobody seems willing/able to discuss that case. i'm in the middle of it thus far.
While there is always the possibility of innocent people being executed, as far as I'm aware, it hasn't occurred as of yet, at least not in any case that has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. It's not as if we're just sentencing anyone and everyone to death. To receive that sentence, you need to be proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt of some pretty heinous stuff, so for a person to be convicted of a crime that horrible, and receive the death sentence for it would require a whole lot of unlucky coincidences for that person to have that much evidence against him.[/quote]
What if the argument becomes one of ineffectiveness? There's no need to mischaracterize the arguments of those against the death penalty.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/det...alty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates
I don't think you know very much about the prison system in the united states, and I think you misunderstand what "justice" is supposed to be.
EDIT: Has anyone other than the elp and willardhaven read the new yorker article? nobody seems willing/able to discuss that case. i'm in the middle of it thus far.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']EDIT: Has anyone other than the elp and willardhaven read the new yorker article? nobody seems willing/able to discuss that case. i'm in the middle of it thus far.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I read it, it's the typical ElP BS.
"Hay everybody I found one case where the judiciary system failed [in Texas, no less, wow what a surprise], the death penalty should be repealed"
"Hay everybody I found one case where an abortion was botched, a woman's right to an abortion should be taken away"
bla bla bla
As if we don't know he's nodding his head to the Christian preacher every Sunday then going around trying to collect anecdotes that support his preacher's dogmatic viewpoints.
Yeah I read it, it's the typical ElP BS.
"Hay everybody I found one case where the judiciary system failed [in Texas, no less, wow what a surprise], the death penalty should be repealed"
"Hay everybody I found one case where an abortion was botched, a woman's right to an abortion should be taken away"
bla bla bla
As if we don't know he's nodding his head to the Christian preacher every Sunday then going around trying to collect anecdotes that support his preacher's dogmatic viewpoints.
[quote name='Msut77']I noticed.
That is something you aren't doing either.
Trisha Meili was in the park that night as well, using your logic she would have been rounded up and questioned as well. Although she had have an alibi.
One "could" have been "involved" with "something" and still have "zero connection" with anything specific.
Assuming you aren't using the phrase "zero connection" to mean same continent where the crime took place.[/QUOTE]
Is it possible for you, in ANY way, to have a debate or conversation without resorting to sarcasm in every post, and trying to characterize the other person as ill informed or ignorant? I go out of my way to be polite and respectful to everyone here, even when I may not agree with their opinions, in order to have a civilized argument. You seem to be intent on annoying people until they go away, as I am about to do. All I ever intended in this thread was to express an opinion, and gain further knowlege to either confirm or reject my prior assumptions, but you have to turn everything into a mean spirited contest. I'm through, if your goal is to turn away every single person on this board who doesn't share your opinions or viewpoints, then congrats, job well done.
That is something you aren't doing either.
Trisha Meili was in the park that night as well, using your logic she would have been rounded up and questioned as well. Although she had have an alibi.
One "could" have been "involved" with "something" and still have "zero connection" with anything specific.
Assuming you aren't using the phrase "zero connection" to mean same continent where the crime took place.[/QUOTE]
Is it possible for you, in ANY way, to have a debate or conversation without resorting to sarcasm in every post, and trying to characterize the other person as ill informed or ignorant? I go out of my way to be polite and respectful to everyone here, even when I may not agree with their opinions, in order to have a civilized argument. You seem to be intent on annoying people until they go away, as I am about to do. All I ever intended in this thread was to express an opinion, and gain further knowlege to either confirm or reject my prior assumptions, but you have to turn everything into a mean spirited contest. I'm through, if your goal is to turn away every single person on this board who doesn't share your opinions or viewpoints, then congrats, job well done.
[quote name='spmahn']Is it possible for you, in ANY way, to have a debate or conversation without resorting to sarcasm in every post[/quote]
Yes.
Newsflash.
I ain't trying.
Something that you unequivocally haven't done is examine your assumptions.
Instead you double down on your wrongheaded leaps of logic.
You have some gall accusing me of being mean spirited when you repeatedly call a bunch of kids basically coerced into giving false confessions stupid and pretty much claim they deserved it because they "shouldn't have been in the park" anyway.
False confessions are responsible for the convictions of a sizable amount of those exonerated due to DNA evidence whether you choose to believe that or not.
Yes.
Newsflash.
I ain't trying.
Something that you unequivocally haven't done is examine your assumptions.
Instead you double down on your wrongheaded leaps of logic.
You have some gall accusing me of being mean spirited when you repeatedly call a bunch of kids basically coerced into giving false confessions stupid and pretty much claim they deserved it because they "shouldn't have been in the park" anyway.
False confessions are responsible for the convictions of a sizable amount of those exonerated due to DNA evidence whether you choose to believe that or not.
Last edited by a moderator:
numbier_wun
CAGiversary!
Wow, before reading that I thought that arson investigation was a nailed-down, scientific process just like any other detective work. The article has really opened my eyes. So many people have been convicted of arson crimes due to a bunch of lies, misconceptions, and pure BS. Also, William Hurst is my new hero. He pissed all over the so called "evidence" and said "Hey, bitches! Look, I proved that you guys are full of shit! Let that man go free!" Too bad none of those retarded assholes listened to him.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Having read all of it, thanks for posting it, elp. A stunning article.
[quote name='spmahn']Is it possible for you, in ANY way, to have a debate or conversation without resorting to sarcasm in every post, and trying to characterize the other person as ill informed or ignorant? I go out of my way to be polite and respectful to everyone here, even when I may not agree with their opinions, in order to have a civilized argument. You seem to be intent on annoying people until they go away, as I am about to do. All I ever intended in this thread was to express an opinion, and gain further knowlege to either confirm or reject my prior assumptions, but you have to turn everything into a mean spirited contest. I'm through, if your goal is to turn away every single person on this board who doesn't share your opinions or viewpoints, then congrats, job well done.[/QUOTE]
Allow me to chime in here...
I'll try to be as respectful as you admittedly have been. Your assumptions could not be more wrong, which I think puts a lot of people on the defensive. Your claims seemed to imply (or you outright stated) how unlikely it is for someone who is innocent to be given the death penalty. You asked for counter-examples:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row
That is a list of 135 death row inmates who have been exonerated since 1973, over a dozen thanks to DNA evidence. Is it possible that some of those people actually did commit the crime they were convicted of? Sure. But all of them? Come on.
Additionally, your argument that people essentially "must have been doing something wrong" can basically be boiled down to a presumption of guilt, which is the very antithesis of our legal philosophy.
While I'm personally opposed to the death penalty, I'm not putting this forward as the definitive argument against it, I'm just pointing out that you've been ill-informed as to the number of such cases.
I agree with you that we should be able to have a respectful debate, but you also need to be able to admit when your assumptions were wrong. In this case they were.
Allow me to chime in here...
I'll try to be as respectful as you admittedly have been. Your assumptions could not be more wrong, which I think puts a lot of people on the defensive. Your claims seemed to imply (or you outright stated) how unlikely it is for someone who is innocent to be given the death penalty. You asked for counter-examples:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row
That is a list of 135 death row inmates who have been exonerated since 1973, over a dozen thanks to DNA evidence. Is it possible that some of those people actually did commit the crime they were convicted of? Sure. But all of them? Come on.
Additionally, your argument that people essentially "must have been doing something wrong" can basically be boiled down to a presumption of guilt, which is the very antithesis of our legal philosophy.
While I'm personally opposed to the death penalty, I'm not putting this forward as the definitive argument against it, I'm just pointing out that you've been ill-informed as to the number of such cases.
I agree with you that we should be able to have a respectful debate, but you also need to be able to admit when your assumptions were wrong. In this case they were.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
It is a shame the kids died.
It is a shame he wasn't guilty.
It is a shame he couldn't man the
up, take 20% burns on his body and save his infants.
It is also a shame he couldn't wake the up, grab his two year old off of his bed and toss her outside.
It is a shame he wasn't guilty.
It is a shame he couldn't man the
up, take 20% burns on his body and save his infants.It is also a shame he couldn't wake the
up, grab his two year old off of his bed and toss her outside.[quote name='bvharris']Allow me to chime in here...
I'll try to be as respectful as you admittedly have been. Your assumptions could not be more wrong, which I think puts a lot of people on the defensive. Your claims seemed to imply (or you outright stated) how unlikely it is for someone who is innocent to be given the death penalty. You asked for counter-examples:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row
That is a list of 135 death row inmates who have been exonerated since 1973, over a dozen thanks to DNA evidence. Is it possible that some of those people actually did commit the crime they were convicted of? Sure. But all of them? Come on.
Additionally, your argument that people essentially "must have been doing something wrong" can basically be boiled down to a presumption of guilt, which is the very antithesis of our legal philosophy.
While I'm personally opposed to the death penalty, I'm not putting this forward as the definitive argument against it, I'm just pointing out that you've been ill-informed as to the number of such cases.
I agree with you that we should be able to have a respectful debate, but you also need to be able to admit when your assumptions were wrong. In this case they were.[/QUOTE]
Thank you sir, this is all I asked for, and I appreciate your civilty in the matter. When others resort to trying to slander others peoples character instead of actually making an argument, then its easy to get defensive about your positions even if they are illogical, because you start to feel like youre defending yourself rather then defending your argument.
Thank you for the link, as with anything, when you try hundreds or thousands of cases every year, inevitably mistakes will occaisionally get made, nobody is perfect, and there should be measures in the system to correct these mistakes when they occur, although I do feel that it gets a bit absurd to see people who get convicted in open and shut cases sit on death row for 20 years because they're on their 97th appeal. I will gladly admit when my arguments are wrong, or misguided as they were here, as long as these threads dont get bogged down with personal attacks as they so often do.
I'll try to be as respectful as you admittedly have been. Your assumptions could not be more wrong, which I think puts a lot of people on the defensive. Your claims seemed to imply (or you outright stated) how unlikely it is for someone who is innocent to be given the death penalty. You asked for counter-examples:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row
That is a list of 135 death row inmates who have been exonerated since 1973, over a dozen thanks to DNA evidence. Is it possible that some of those people actually did commit the crime they were convicted of? Sure. But all of them? Come on.
Additionally, your argument that people essentially "must have been doing something wrong" can basically be boiled down to a presumption of guilt, which is the very antithesis of our legal philosophy.
While I'm personally opposed to the death penalty, I'm not putting this forward as the definitive argument against it, I'm just pointing out that you've been ill-informed as to the number of such cases.
I agree with you that we should be able to have a respectful debate, but you also need to be able to admit when your assumptions were wrong. In this case they were.[/QUOTE]
Thank you sir, this is all I asked for, and I appreciate your civilty in the matter. When others resort to trying to slander others peoples character instead of actually making an argument, then its easy to get defensive about your positions even if they are illogical, because you start to feel like youre defending yourself rather then defending your argument.
Thank you for the link, as with anything, when you try hundreds or thousands of cases every year, inevitably mistakes will occaisionally get made, nobody is perfect, and there should be measures in the system to correct these mistakes when they occur, although I do feel that it gets a bit absurd to see people who get convicted in open and shut cases sit on death row for 20 years because they're on their 97th appeal. I will gladly admit when my arguments are wrong, or misguided as they were here, as long as these threads dont get bogged down with personal attacks as they so often do.
[quote name='spmahn']
Thank you for the link, as with anything, when you try hundreds or thousands of cases every year, inevitably mistakes will occaisionally get made, nobody ia perfect, and there should be measures in the system to correct these mistakes when they occur, although I do feel that it gets a bit absurd to see people who get convicted in open and shut cases sit on death row for 20 years because they're on their 97th appeal. I will gladly admit when my arguments are wrong, or misguided as they were here, as long as these threads dont get bogged down with personal attacks as they so often do.[/QUOTE]
I think you'd have to agree that the more severe the punishment, the more avenues of appeal should be open to an individual. The number of death penalty exonerations, even if they're relatively small, seem to make a compelling argument for making the system more foolproof, not less.
As I said before, I don't think the state should be in the business of killing its own citizens. But if we are going to do it, the weight of the matter demands at the very least that there is nothing in our legal system which is undertaken with more caution and temperance. Even in an "open and shut case" the argument for limiting appeals and speeding up an execution one is a troubling one. To correctly apply a favorite meme from the other side of the aisle, that would be a truly slippery slope.
If a nation based on the principle of justice for all is going to have the death penalty, it is worth whatever cost to ensure that we get it right. I don't personally think it is worth this cost, either from a financial or moral perspective. But I think you'll agree that even a single human being put to death for a crime they did not commit is one too many.
Thank you for the link, as with anything, when you try hundreds or thousands of cases every year, inevitably mistakes will occaisionally get made, nobody ia perfect, and there should be measures in the system to correct these mistakes when they occur, although I do feel that it gets a bit absurd to see people who get convicted in open and shut cases sit on death row for 20 years because they're on their 97th appeal. I will gladly admit when my arguments are wrong, or misguided as they were here, as long as these threads dont get bogged down with personal attacks as they so often do.[/QUOTE]
I think you'd have to agree that the more severe the punishment, the more avenues of appeal should be open to an individual. The number of death penalty exonerations, even if they're relatively small, seem to make a compelling argument for making the system more foolproof, not less.
As I said before, I don't think the state should be in the business of killing its own citizens. But if we are going to do it, the weight of the matter demands at the very least that there is nothing in our legal system which is undertaken with more caution and temperance. Even in an "open and shut case" the argument for limiting appeals and speeding up an execution one is a troubling one. To correctly apply a favorite meme from the other side of the aisle, that would be a truly slippery slope.
If a nation based on the principle of justice for all is going to have the death penalty, it is worth whatever cost to ensure that we get it right. I don't personally think it is worth this cost, either from a financial or moral perspective. But I think you'll agree that even a single human being put to death for a crime they did not commit is one too many.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
Ulysses Everett McGill: [Upon being startled awake] Mmmm. How's my hair?
tivo
CAGiversary!
I didn't read the article. too long. I'd read the summary if you wrote it though. And of course I've been reading the comments.
[quote name='spmahn']I am personally in favor of the death penalty. To me, there are some people out there that absolutely should not continue to live after committing the crimes that they have. The answer to the high cost as compared to life in prison is to limit the appeals process. If you get sentenced to death, then you get a year to sit in jail and meet with your lawyers or read your law books or whatever and come up with your one big argument and make your appeal. If you can't come up with one, or if it's not a compelling argument, then that's it, you should be put away within 30 days.
While there is always the possibility of innocent people being executed, as far as I'm aware, it hasn't occurred as of yet, at least not in any case that has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. It's not as if we're just sentencing anyone and everyone to death. To receive that sentence, you need to be proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt of some pretty heinous stuff, so for a person to be convicted of a crime that horrible, and receive the death sentence for it would require a whole lot of unlucky coincidences for that person to have that much evidence against him.
If you want to abolish the death penalty however, that's fine too, but we need to reform the prison system in that case. You commit murder, rape, etc., then you will serve your sentence out in a maximum security prison, you get one cell to yourself, where you get to sit for 24 hours a day, maybe a copy of the bible or something, a TV that only picks up C-SPAN and PBS, and that's it. None of this time to exercise, time in the library, time on the internet, etc. etc. If you're in prison for life, than that's it.[/QUOTE]
well said. Although I think the death penalty needs to remain active no matter what, even for the "rare" cases of multiple and/or repeat murders or terrorist actions.
[quote name='spmahn']I am personally in favor of the death penalty. To me, there are some people out there that absolutely should not continue to live after committing the crimes that they have. The answer to the high cost as compared to life in prison is to limit the appeals process. If you get sentenced to death, then you get a year to sit in jail and meet with your lawyers or read your law books or whatever and come up with your one big argument and make your appeal. If you can't come up with one, or if it's not a compelling argument, then that's it, you should be put away within 30 days.
While there is always the possibility of innocent people being executed, as far as I'm aware, it hasn't occurred as of yet, at least not in any case that has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. It's not as if we're just sentencing anyone and everyone to death. To receive that sentence, you need to be proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt of some pretty heinous stuff, so for a person to be convicted of a crime that horrible, and receive the death sentence for it would require a whole lot of unlucky coincidences for that person to have that much evidence against him.
If you want to abolish the death penalty however, that's fine too, but we need to reform the prison system in that case. You commit murder, rape, etc., then you will serve your sentence out in a maximum security prison, you get one cell to yourself, where you get to sit for 24 hours a day, maybe a copy of the bible or something, a TV that only picks up C-SPAN and PBS, and that's it. None of this time to exercise, time in the library, time on the internet, etc. etc. If you're in prison for life, than that's it.[/QUOTE]
well said. Although I think the death penalty needs to remain active no matter what, even for the "rare" cases of multiple and/or repeat murders or terrorist actions.
Last edited by a moderator:
tivo
CAGiversary!
Prisons in the US are too nice. What if, instead of paying the $22000+/yr on a repeat criminals, we take away their citizenship and deport them to some other country (in Africa or Asia) and put them in a prison over there run by the local govt. I'm sure these other countries would take them for $1500 a head. Do a little 3 or 4 strikes policy. save society some pain, grief, money, etc. and make the US a nicer place to live + $$ to foreign companies. its a win-win-win system.
I got the idea after watching "Locked Up Abroad."
I got the idea after watching "Locked Up Abroad."
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='tivo']Prisons in the US are too nice. What if, instead of paying the $22000+/yr on a repeat criminals, we take away their citizenship and deport them to some other country (in Africa or Asia) and put them in a prison over there run by the local govt. I'm sure these other countries would take them for $1500 a head. Do a little 3 or 4 strikes policy. save society some pain, grief, money, etc. and make the US a nicer place to live + $$ to foreign companies. its a win-win-win system.
I got the idea after watching "Locked Up Abroad."[/QUOTE]
Unless you do it for hundreds of thousands of people at once, it would be considered unusual punishment.
If prisons overseas are less humane than ours, it would be considered cruel punishment.
Don't get me wrong; Smithers took to a Turkish prison swimmingly, but I think he is the exception.
I got the idea after watching "Locked Up Abroad."[/QUOTE]
Unless you do it for hundreds of thousands of people at once, it would be considered unusual punishment.
If prisons overseas are less humane than ours, it would be considered cruel punishment.
Don't get me wrong; Smithers took to a Turkish prison swimmingly, but I think he is the exception.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
I was sent this link that for some reason I think might belong here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090904/ap_on_re_us/us_exoneree_millionaires
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090904/ap_on_re_us/us_exoneree_millionaires
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']Having read all of it, thanks for posting it, elp. A stunning article.[/QUOTE]
You're quite welcome of course. I thought it was fascinating, and that's why I shared it. I'm rather puzzled at responses that say the answer to our problems with this issue is to limit the appeals process, given the article; perhaps they haven't read it?
You're quite welcome of course. I thought it was fascinating, and that's why I shared it. I'm rather puzzled at responses that say the answer to our problems with this issue is to limit the appeals process, given the article; perhaps they haven't read it?
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='elprincipe']You're quite welcome of course. I thought it was fascinating, and that's why I shared it. I'm rather puzzled at responses that say the answer to our problems with this issue is to limit the appeals process, given the article; perhaps they haven't read it?[/QUOTE]
I thought the point of the article was to not be too drunk to save any of your children from a simple house fire.
I thought the point of the article was to not be too drunk to save any of your children from a simple house fire.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I thought the point of the article was to not be too drunk to save any of your children from a simple house fire.[/QUOTE]
Okay, we get it, you think he was a lousy father. And maybe you're right. But that's not really the issue here.
Okay, we get it, you think he was a lousy father. And maybe you're right. But that's not really the issue here.
bread's done