BRAVO, BRAVO !!!! Me claps loudly in agreement with you Jimmy.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
Quote:
You, as with most death penalty opponents, are a hypocrite. So WE can't determine when someone else dies, but Tookie can? Four times?
The "impetus" behind his decision to become an anti-gang crusader was "oh @!#$, I got caught and if I don't look like I'm trying to do something good they're gonna give my ass the needle!" He didn't care to help the cops, he didn't show any remorse for the people he personally killed....he didn't care that his inaction helped the gang continue to grow and continue to be responsible for the deaths of countless people.
He shot a man in the back in cold blood. Twice. He killed AN ENTIRE FAMILY. He got EXACTLY what he deserved. He should have been killed 4 times over, if there was any possible way to do that. If the cost of executions is an issue, as someone else brought up, then they should sell tickets and put it on pay-per-view. "When Society ATTACKS BACK!" It'd be bigger than a Tyson fight, I'd bet.
preach on. finally someone that makes sense speaks
JimmyZ wrote:GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Did Tookie show remorse? I don't know. I'd think that if he started an anti-gang mission, there was a impotice (epiphany?) somewhere along the line moitvated by remorse.
I don't disagree with the original sentence spike, but I don't think anyone has the right or ability to determine when anyone else dies. Doesn't matter if its the courts or the person that murdered. Life imprisonment is punishment enough I think.
You, as with most death penalty opponents, are a hypocrite. So WE can't determine when someone else dies, but Tookie can? Four times?
Jimmy: I gotta ask this, because I put it more plainly than the nose on your face, are you that much of a moron, or do you just post without reading a damned thing?
Let me re-quote my self and bold the line that makes me ask this, because clearly, you ain't doing much reading.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:I don't disagree with the original sentence spike, but I don't think anyone has the right or ability to determine when anyone else dies.
I believe you calling me a hypocrite is laughable. What else is new though? I can stand on morality.
Quote:
The "impetus" behind his decision to become an anti-gang crusader was "oh @!#$, I got caught and if I don't look like I'm trying to do something good they're gonna give my ass the needle!" He didn't care to help the cops, he didn't show any remorse for the people he personally killed....he didn't care that his inaction helped the gang continue to grow and continue to be responsible for the deaths of countless people.
You say this based on what imperical evidence... you see, before you post half-cocked, it's a good idea to actually y'know, READ what was said (funny that?). I didn't say he was remorseful, I used a line of thought, and you know what, I don't know what was going on in his head, and I even said that.
Maybe he started being a anti-gang crusader because he didn't want someone else to follow the same path he did. Ever think that? Or, are you thought and reading impaired?
Quote:
He shot a man in the back in cold blood. Twice. He killed AN ENTIRE FAMILY. He got EXACTLY what he deserved. He should have been killed 4 times over, if there was any possible way to do that. If the cost of executions is an issue, as someone else brought up, then they should sell tickets and put it on pay-per-view. "When Society ATTACKS BACK!" It'd be bigger than a Tyson fight, I'd bet.
You'd bet wrong. Until you've seen someone die out of want, you're sorely wrong.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Quote:
Maybe he started being a anti-gang crusader because he didn't want someone else to follow the same path he did. Ever think that? Or, are you thought and reading impaired?
damn dude, what world are you living in. most of these guys in jail for rape or killing and get out ealr because of parole all say they found God and are reformed. then the parole board checks out their record in prison and its lean so they say "why not give him parole, hes a good guy". the next day the dude gets arrested for rape and then everyone scratches their head as to why the guy was let out. im not saying all people are like that but 95% are. And its not like everyone that kills someone gets the Death Penalty. Most just get life. Giving the Death Penalty comes once in a Blue Moon and most states dont even have it.
Jimmy: Once more, I'll make it REALLY easy.
JimmyZ(the grade 2 flunky1 wrote:
GAM (The All-Knowing One) wrote:I don't disagree with the original sentence spike, but I don't think anyone has the right or ability to determine when anyone else dies.
READ THE DAMNED SENTENCE FIRST.
Now, have you read it, really?
What part of anyone is not computing?
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Gam, I believe in a previous debate about the DP you stated something to the fact that where you do not agree with the DP there are certain individuals of whom it would apply to. I believe it was traitors and IF I remember correctly (please correct me if I'm wrong)
someone who killed for the fun of it. Now it would appear Tookie fits your one exception and would in your book have been OK to "stick" as the case was.
I'm curious, our debate was not that long ago what has happened to change your mind to now noone should get it?
NOT hateing, Just respectfuly asking
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
GAM (The All-Knowing One) wrote:I don't disagree with the original sentence spike, but I don't think anyone has the right or ability to determine when anyone else dies.
Tookie had the ability to choose when innocent people died. He didn't have the right, but he had the ability.
As a society of law, the central governing body has the right to decide appropriate punishment for crime. We, as the electing body vote for or against election of lawmakers and even get to vote on specific laws. One of the foundations of our laws is that majority rules, and in this case the majority of voters supported the death penalty the last time it was on the ballot.
This gives the central governing body not only the right, but permission by the voting public to carry out executions. We empower the government to have a death penalty.
On a personal note, if someone broke into my house, I don't think I would lose much sleep over taking the appropriate action to protect my family's safety. I have that ability, and the law states I have that right.
John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto
Jack: I don't remember saying that... at least, not in that vein. IIRC I said that someone may deserve it (and let's not forget, I deserve a lot more than a tolerance for decomposition after working SOC's for almost a year
but that's another story), but no one should be put to death by another, or everyone.
Jimmy: No one has that "right." I think you missed that point (either I didn't communicate it, or you're not reading that out of my posts, I admit, I don't emphasise particularly well on the net... the inflections don't carry well in text). A sentence of death that is never carried out is Life Imprisonment with jeopardy. I say, drop the pretext and the jeopardy, save time, frustration, and money on the way.
I have no problems at all with Life Sentences with or without parole (usually parole doesn't become a factor until 25 years have been served, unless the Justice advises differently). Even if the prisoner is a No Human Contact designate (I think there's like 2 people on earth with that...), warehousing them in Special Handling Units or what not, keep them alive, because we're not savages, and we're better than they are.
I think that if we're going to even half-way seriously consider ourselves civillised (and I know KOTL will weigh in on that), we have to be above the worst elements in our society... Seriously, we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard. They chose to kill, we choose not to because we are not lawless rabble... it's leading by example, and yeah, it fails when someone chooses not to follow the societal norm, but, that's why prisons are built to house (and hell, maybe even, gosh, rehabilitate???) criminals.
John: The last statement is a different ball of wax, and it'll probably require that I put an addendum onto my statement, with apologies.
GAM (Hath SPOKEN!) wrote:I don't think anyone has the right or ability to kill out of want.
I don't see execution as anything greater than state-sponsored murder. Killing in defence is different, definitely... I believe that a person in imminent mortal peril has a right and duty to meet force with force, but, I don't agree with chasing and mowing down someone that is leaving your property... again, it's punitive, and it really makes none of us better than the criminal, nor does it accomplish anything that might reap some benefit.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
gam i think like you (without the better words to say the least ). lol i dont know what else to say honestly you put it the way i would have wanted to say it if i had the words to say lmao.
Good they got this sucker and looks like someone in Mississippi bit the dust to. Send them suckers to hell.
- 2004 Cavalier - 124k, owned since new
Quote:
If the cost of executions is an issue, as someone else brought up, then they should sell tickets and put it on pay-per-view. "When Society ATTACKS BACK!" It'd be bigger than a Tyson fight, I'd bet.
I never understood why it cost so much.
SunfireN2o wrote:Quote:
If the cost of executions is an issue, as someone else brought up, then they should sell tickets and put it on pay-per-view. "When Society ATTACKS BACK!" It'd be bigger than a Tyson fight, I'd bet.
I never understood why it cost so much.
because of the appeals process. they have a maximum or six appeals i believe it is. after lawyer fees court fees many many other variables one appeal could have the potential to get up to $500,000 possibly more who knows
why bother putting someone in jail for life without parole? wouldn't it be cheaper and better on the prison overcrowding situations to just kill the life without parole inmates, all life witout parole is doing is delaying the inevitable. to me thats not about justice or vengeance, its about economics.
oh and one thought i had, does it say anywhere that the DP is a form of punishment, i have always thought that the purpose of it isn't for punisment, but to protect society from a lunatic that cannot be reformed.
but personally i don't see whats the big deal about the DP anyways, is human life so sacred? no not really, not when its scumbags like tookie
You'll never touch God's hand
You'll never taste God's breath
Because you'll never see the second coming
Life's too short to be focused on insanity
I've seen the ways of God
I'll take the devil any day
Hail Satan
(slayer, skeleton christ, 2006)
did you read the whole thread ? we have already discussed that there death is more expensive then life imprisenment
Quote:
because of the appeals process. they have a maximum or six appeals i believe it is. after lawyer fees court fees many many other variables one appeal could have the potential to get up to $500,000 possibly more who knows
If they are going to use the DP ( which I support) they need to limit the amount of appeals. I dont want a innocent man going to jail, but 6 appeals???
Quote:
I dont want a innocent man going to jail, but 6 appeals???
Meant I dont want a innocent man getting the DP, sorry.
no i didn't read the whole thing, im not reading through the BS of GAM and jimmyZ arguing about wording. ive heard its cheaper to keep em alive but still, if we were changing the system to make life without parole a death sentence, why woldn't we just remove 5 of the 6 appeals too? if it was my choice, life without parole would be replaced with death, you get one appeal within 45 days of the death sentence, on the 45th day you will be executed unless the appeal is granted. and none of this nancy boy injection crap......lets make a game out of it....the prisoner is hoisted up a crane to about 200 feet, a bullseye is painted on the concrete, everyone places bets on how close he will make it to the concrete, then he's released.....its fun for the whole family
You'll never touch God's hand
You'll never taste God's breath
Because you'll never see the second coming
Life's too short to be focused on insanity
I've seen the ways of God
I'll take the devil any day
Hail Satan
(slayer, skeleton christ, 2006)
lol you got quite the imagination lmao
Fix the prison overcrowding by not locking people up for minor ofences. Did you know that the US prison system has 180 000 people locked up for minor posession? That's rediculas.
Making a game out of killing people.. Nice.
Murderers or not, they are people. Often people who commited a crime of passion that will never be repeated. Often vicious and nasty killers who would do it again. The fact is, you don't really ever know which is which. Saying that killing is wrong, then killing someone for doing it is the biggest piece of hypocracy around.
PAX
Mike: Have you not heard about tainted evidence and new DNA evidence bringing exonerations? Usually new evidence is not admissable at trial (by either side) without a drawn out discovery process. Trust me, I know. I'd rather see a bad guy go to prison for a long damned time than see an innocent guy get it when he didn't deserve it.
I'm sorry, but your idea about no appeals (or even one...) and then death in 45 days is fine and dandy until You're the poor slob that's in the hot seat. So, when you're done in (in whatever barbaric way you choose), and it's found out that you weren't the culprit, you're 6 feet under, you're still dead. This shouldn't take a rocket surgeon to figure that out. If you're in Jail, you've lost time (and illusions most likely), but other than that, you're still sucking in air, and can live to see another day.
The kind of "justice" you're talking about was rife in middle ages Europe, but they went for the gusto. Kill the interloper without any evidence, and do it on the spot. Sure, it's barbaric, but it's "civil" isn't it? </Incredible Dripping Sarcasm>
I'm not saying that some people don't deserve it, Mike, I'm saying that murdering someone is wrong no matter who is doing it, and that when someone that is in fact innocent of a charge is put to death, we give up part of what we are because it's done out of want.
Hahahaha: That's in California alone IIRC. The US has 4-5% of the world's population, and 25% of the criminals in prison. Why is that?
Nice call on the hypocracy of the DP... I've been saying that for a long time.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Quote:
If they are going to use the DP ( which I support) they need to limit the amount of appeals. I dont want a innocent man going to jail, but 6 appeals???
I know the amount of appeals may seem excesive but it is neccessary and fair.
To me in my professionial opinion giving someone a sentence of death based on a Jury trial conviction is BS. (Notice I say based on a jury trial and not trial by judge) Why?
In order for a jury to reach a decision they need to be presented with all of the facts of the case to make a sound judgement. I can tell you from
FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE that doesnt always happen. Before the actual trial begins there are so many preliminary matters such as motions, supression hearings,etc. That a great deal of the facts and evidence are thrown out, not admitted or supressed for one reason or another long before a Jury steps foot in the room. On top of that you have recanting witnesses, whose statements sometimes are thrown out or surpressed.
By the time the case is in trial and the jury hears it they only hear about 65-70% of the facts.
Ive even served on two juries and witnessed first hand how we as jurors dont always really listen to the facts and let our emotions, prejudices, opinions, biases, fatigue(ifits a long trial), overcome our better judgement. Hell some just dont care ,plain and simple.
So you add those two factors alone ( the misinformation and human behavior) and tell me, if it were you, how secure you'd fell being judge by a group of your "peers"?
So it is through appeals you can sometimes rectify the errors made in a jury trial.
I dunno know about you all but if I was convicted of a crime and my life is in jeapordy I'd take all 6 appeals and wouldnt care how much it costs the state. Especially when I see that the state can pay a 1/4 of a mill for a new sports stadium, or etc. I figure Hell they can afford it, it's my life it's worth that much to me. Basic self preservation
Say it with me, "Its not what you know...It's what you can prove"
Just think if they did actually execute these convicts instead of letting the appeals process drag on and on and on and on they may have more room in prisons and then the cops and courts could put away others that also belong behind bars.
Ok, New law. Anyone sentenced to more then 20 years gets a needle that way it will decrease the prison population and allow more scum to be locked away rather then get off due to overcrowding. Also once word hits the streets that for anything bad enough to get you 20 will get you dead I garrentee the violent crime rate will drop like a brick in a bathtub. Oh and NO appeals either, you get proven guilty thru DNA or video
they take you out and string you up. I bet damn near all violent crime would go away if these freaks knew it was a one way ticket to a hangmans noose.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
