Capital Punishment

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 8:32 am

Originally posted by Garcia:

funny you mentioned that I just read that he was two days ago in Sweden and that there was an "assult" (if that is what it is called) on Bush. 5 men or so tried to kill him. I don't remember what contry the assassins came from....Denmark but they got them in time and locked them up.

I didn't see this, but I did see the reports on two bomb threats and I believe the arrest of the ones who were planning it.

Originally posted by Vivien:
I respect your views, but I am against the death penalty. I don't have a better solution, and I understand your concerns, but I just feel 'wrong' about putting another human to death... I just feel that it's not my right to choose that.

Timothy McVeigh took it upon himself to choose. Did he have the right to choose? How many did he choose to put to death? Was the amount not high enough?

What about Hitler? Say Hitler was caught alive, should he get *Life* for his crimes? He was human as well.( The worst human ever)

What about Stalin?

Pol Pot?

Anatres · Post by **Anatres** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 8:40 am

[ 06-19-2001: Message edited by: Anatres ]

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 8:43 am

Originally posted by Weasel:
Timothy McVeigh took it upon himself to choose. Did he have the right to choose? How many did he choose to put to death? Was the amount not high enough?

If he didn't have the right to choose, how does that make it any better to choose to kill him?

leedogg · Post by **leedogg** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 8:48 am

wasn't it God that said "an eye for an eye"?

nuff said.

Vivien · Post by **Vivien** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 8:51 am

Leedogg:
Respectfully, if we are to bring the bible into this.
Jesus said 'I tell you not an eye for an eye, instead turn the other cheek.'

leedogg · Post by **leedogg** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 8:54 am

that shows my ignorance of the bible

OK then, in the words of metallica,"kill 'em all"

point being- i'm for capital punishment, and as far as the statement earlier, about people wanting to watch Tim get injected. i think if we broadcast the executions on TV, people might would think twice before they went on a killin spree. (or not) i really didn't want to get too involved in this, so i will leave it at this.

[ 06-14-2001: Message edited by: leedogg ]

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 8:55 am

Originally posted by Georgi:
If he didn't have the right to choose, how does that make it any better to choose to kill him?

Would it be better to let him spend 50 years sitting in a jail cell, with cable tv, with the option to read any book he wants, with three meals a day. While the children he killed have now lost any chance at a life. While it drains just a little more from the US government to support a waste, someone with no regret, who given the chance would commit another act, without regret.

The money that is spent on keeping him a live and healthy( The cheapest way to get health coverage is to commit a crime and go to prison, while doing the time, have your problem fixed then) could be better spent helping other people in the US and the world.

Anatres · Post by **Anatres** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 8:57 am

[ 06-19-2001: Message edited by: Anatres ]

scully1 · Post by **scully1** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 9:02 am

Originally posted by Georgi:
If you condemn a man for committing murder, because it's wrong... but then sentence him to death... are you any better than him?

Like I said, I think the main purpose of the death penalty SHOULD be to ensure that the maniac is permanently stopped. Not as a revenge, or, as leedogg mentioned, a compensation for lives taken.

As far as being a deterrent, some people don't care if they live or die.

You know in old Japan, they used to test samurai swords before they were sold. They would take criminals, execute them, and chop up their bodies with the swords to test the blades. Then the mutilated corpses would be put on public display. "You want to be a psycho, this could be you." Then they'd engrave the handle of the sword, "Tested By So-and-so." I'm not kidding. Now THAT might be a deterrent...

leedogg · Post by **leedogg** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 9:11 am

Loner- now thats cool.

(yes i'm cold-hearted)

Vivien · Post by **Vivien** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 9:21 am

Weasel and Anatres:
Respectfully,
You assume that the criminal is without redemption. You also assume you know what the criminal thinks/feels. Unfortunately I don't have that gift

One of my concerns with the death penalty is with the majority of the cases facing 'death'. In our courtroom, guilt is not always as certain with others as with Mr. McVeigh. I do not like the idea that it is acceptable to send innocent men to die as long as the guilty as well are punished.

[ 06-14-2001: Message edited by: Vivien ]

Anatres · Post by **Anatres** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 9:31 am

[ 06-19-2001: Message edited by: Anatres ]

nael · Post by **nael** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 9:36 am

during the whole mcveigh thing, i heard a man on TV say soemthing pretty smart...find a penalty worse than death, and everyoen will surely agree to do away with the death penalty.
prison and death are meant as punishments, nto as a means of rehabilitation. yoru parents punish you when you grow when you do something bad, if you realize you did wrong after the fact, you still got punsihed, no? you didn't stop being grounded just because you say you realize you shouldn't have snuck out, or whatever you did as kids...

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 9:36 am

Originally posted by Vivien:

One of my concerns with the death penalty is with the majority of the cases facing 'death'. In our courtroom, guilt is not always as certain with others as with Mr. McVeigh. I do not like the idea that it is acceptable to send innocent men to die as long as the guilty as well are punished.

I agree with you on this point, it shouldn't be acceptable to send innocent men to die, but instead of doing away with the *Death* sentence it should be improved to make sure something like this doesn't happen. With the people in this country this shouldn't be hard to do, but it will not get done. Too many have their own goals, and to stop and think about their fellow man/women isn't one of them, unless it's to make money off of them.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 9:39 am

Anatres writes:
My comment about Clinton was not aimed at you. And it is a disturbing fact that 63 people close to Clinton and his 'alledged' scandals have turned up mysteriously dead. How does someone commit 'suicide' by decapitating himself?

@Anatres, for eight years some very fanatical, *extemely* well-financed and well-connected people looked for any dirt on Clinton--not stuff for the lawcourts, but stuff that would tarnish him in public. Don't you think that if there was a single instance where an individual's death could be hooked somehow to Clinton, in some way, even if it was only vague and possibly spurious, we would have seen it all over the sensation-seeking media? Remember how heavily the rightwing milked the impeachment hearings for all they were (not even barely) worth. With a potential connection to a death, they would have had a field day. Yet they came up with nothing.

If the logic of the situation doesn't move you (and I don't mean that flamingly; I've got friends, intelligent people who turn red and forget everything when the word "Clinton" comes up, anywhere), then at least read the Conason & Lyons book, or any of the other "Clinton the Killer" debunking books out there.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 9:45 am

Anatres writes:
My comment about Clinton was not aimed at you.

But I was the only one before you made this comment who mentioned Clinton in this topic. If it wasn't aimed at me, was it intended as a general "You mention a negative about Bush you must love Clinton" kind of thing?

And the 'far' right wing media is no better for giving an 'unbiased view' as the leftist press

But again, if we're analyzing the political actions of Dubbyah Bush along a line stretching from left to right, when the rightwing tabloids crow over his appointments, we're given a solid indication of Bush's ideology. And I can only repeat: look up the judicial nominees, or the sub-cabinet appointments, and study their records. Bush is not, as I suggested in answer to Eminem, a "right-centre" politician. He's a nice guy, sure, but he's as ideologically rightwing as Reagan, and his record, as his supporters, his detractors, and the facts themselves show, are solidly behind this statement.

Anatres · Post by **Anatres** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 9:59 am

[ 06-19-2001: Message edited by: Anatres ]

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 10:07 am

Originally posted by Anatres:
One of my main problems with most Americans (no flame intended) is that too many of us look to the media (either side) for truth. It's about circulation and advertisers. It's not about 'unbiased' reporting of facts.

How about this for media reporting..

"In every story told, 10% is true, 40% is speculating, 50% is bull****. The trick is finding the truth" The Daily Weasel your news source.

Anatres · Post by **Anatres** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 10:13 am

[ 06-19-2001: Message edited by: Anatres ]

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 10:26 am

Anatres writes:
One of my main problems with most Americans (no flame intended) is that too many of us look to the media (either side) for truth. It's about circulation and advertisers. It's not about 'unbiased' reporting of facts. See the links I posted in the 'Political Brouhaha' thread I started (at your suggestion).

The link you posted dervies its "facts" from the American Spectator and several other far-right wing publications. Or do you think that the owners of the website actually did the investigative journalism, such as it is, on their own?

That said, the website didn't contain a single fact, but all "this happened after this" kind of tabloid stuff. Have you read any of the thoroughly annotated, minutely detailed "Clinton the killer" books I mentioned? Annotations. Facts. Things that people can be sewed for if they lie about 'em in a book. I like 'em. And that's what I recommend to you, because I think if you read one, you will give it an honest hearing.

EDIT: Also, I don't 'turn red' at the mere sound of Clinton's name.

With respect, it does appear that way, though--you jumped in with an attack on people who support Clinton, when I'd been the only one who mentioned him, and that in a context referring to Dubbyah Bush's political ideology. It was as though I'd waved a red flag before your eyes in mentioning his name, you see.

[ 06-14-2001: Message edited by: fable ]