For those against the death penalty

@shavixmir said
Anti-vaxxers?

I have nothing against them. Its their right to choose.

@averagejoe1 said
Who is this 'he' that you and suzianne are talking about? Poor posting-eze, to say the least. I looked back at my notes, did not see a reference that would identify he.

That's because you can't follow a simple conversation.

It's not about you, mind your damn business

@shavixmir said
I gave you a thorough answer on the first page, which you don’t seem to want to respond to.

Yes, and I agree, didn’t me to pass over it. You are correct, but if, as R aJ says above, there is proof positive, then I say execute them in 3 days.
You have reasons not to. None of those reasons do I agree with. Mainly, the appearance of being a country that executes. Appearing to whom?

@rajk999 said
They speaking about me. They think I need to revise my stance on corporal punishment. Not a chance in hell. I say execute all murderers, pedophiles, rapists, Kidnappers, armed robbers, drug pushers... anyone who damages the lives and liveihoods of others should be executed. That should include corrupt politicians and other like them.

Not quite. I am saying your stance is so idiotic and simplistic it's usually found in trolls (people who deliberately lie on the internet to trigger a response) or in retards.

I don't know which are you but either way changing your stance is not probable.

@zahlanzi said
Not quite. I am saying your stance is so idiotic and simplistic it's usually found in trolls (people who deliberately lie on the internet to trigger a response) or in retards.

I don't know which are you but either way changing your stance is not probable.

Your propensity to insult is the direct result of the failure of your argument. So far you have only expressed support for sick criminals without giving a reason why the government needs to house, protect, feed, and care for these criminals when decent law abiding citizens are denied some of these same essential services.

@zahlanzi said
Not quite. I am saying your stance is so idiotic and simplistic it's usually found in trolls (people who deliberately lie on the internet to trigger a response) or in retards.

I don't know which are you but either way changing your stance is not probable.

A conservative, on this site, and I am not being cynical, does not have to act as you suggest above. Mainly, because we know a response coming back is vacuous, usually not responding to the issue. Why be ‘crafty’ when going up against silly? Why lie to’trigger’ a response, when your parroted responses are pre-triggered?

@AverageJoe1
There is this idea, don't kill people. Which means don't execute, how does execution bring back the victim, for one, and another, execution does not even slow down murders so it is a waste of money to execute prisoners.

Let the bastards rot in solitary but don't kill them because that sends a message that it is ok to kill.

@sonhouse said
@AverageJoe1
There is this idea, don't kill people. Which means don't execute, how does execution bring back the victim, for one, and another, execution does not even slow down murders so it is a waste of money to execute prisoners.

Let the bastards rot in solitary but don't kill them because that sends a message that it is ok to kill.

Well a couple things ... Apparently the criminals not getting the message that it is not ok to kill so this 'dont kill people' principle seems to be nonsense. Next I never knew the purpose of execution is to bring back the victim. Is that what you people think over there in the US? Waste of money to execute prisoners ??? For real ??? In Saudi they do it with one bullet. Maybe youall doing it wrong. You rather spend $25 000 to $70,000 per year for them to rot? That makes sense to you?

@rajk999 said
Your propensity to insult is the direct result of the failure of your argument. So far you have only expressed support for sick criminals without giving a reason why the government needs to house, protect, feed, and care for these criminals when decent law abiding citizens are denied some of these same essential services.

"Your propensity to insult is the direct result of the failure of your argument"
I am not arguing. Why is this so hard to understand. I am not presenting arguments to combat the "more crimes should get the death penalty" statement because i don't want to, because it's idiotic.

"So far you have only expressed support for sick criminals"
Aaand i am not going to bother addressing this.

"why the government needs to house, protect, feed, and care for these criminals"
Making it sound like they are on vacation is another intellectual failing. (the more classy way of saying "you said a stupid". They are denied freedom because they are, at the moment, a danger to society. The goal is to reform them so they can be reintegrated in society.

"when decent law abiding citizens are denied some of these same essential services."
A good justice system is necessary and doesn't come at the cost of homelessness or people going hungry. Nor does it have anything to do with it. Like saying "i am not going to fix this pothole because somewhere in the country a house is burning. I need to take all the pothole budget and allocate it to putting out house fires".

There. I explained one thing without insulting you. Will you consider any off it? or am i again "supporting sick criminals"?

@averagejoe1 said
A conservative, on this site, and I am not being cynical, does not have to act as you suggest above. Mainly, because we know a response coming back is vacuous, usually not responding to the issue. Why be ‘crafty’ when going up against silly? Why lie to’trigger’ a response, when your parroted responses are pre-triggered?

Don't worry, nobody will ever accuse you of being a troll. Sadly, you have convinced everyone you really believe what you blurt out.

@Rajk999
It's a moral issue.
I think it has been proven death sentences don't reduce murder.

When those sickos shoot, there is no thinking about consequences, they have no anger control and when riled, just shoot without thinking.

NO amount of execution will stop that kind of murder.

So the justification comes down to one thing:

Governmental revenge.

Revenge doesn't stop anything.

Murderers do not follow the norms of society and nothing will change that.

If there are 10,000 murders and every murderer gets axed, the next year there will be 10,000 more because murderers NEVER think about consequences to killing them ONLY satisfies revenge, it makes little difference in the death rates of murder.

@sonhouse

How many people choose not to kill because of the death penalty? Unknown number right there.
I would definitely consider what state I was in before I got into a mess like that.
So it does prevent murder but it can never be known how many.

Proving a negative/Russell's teapot kinda thingy.

@sonhouse said
@Rajk999
It's a moral issue.
I think it has been proven death sentences don't reduce murder.

When those sickos shoot, there is no thinking about consequences, they have no anger control and when riled, just shoot without thinking.

NO amount of execution will stop that kind of murder.

So the justification comes down to one thing:

Governmental revenge.

Reven ...[text shortened]... ces to killing them ONLY satisfies revenge, it makes little difference in the death rates of murder.

The purpose of a death sentence is not to reduce murder neither is it to take revenge. Where did you get that nonsense? The purpose is to remove the killer permanently and effectively from society. It works. Your current system is a failure.

@Rajk999
It is still a moral issue whether you like it or not.
It is supposed to be immoral to kill and of course that is a whole other can of worms but you want to do it because it is more convenient, you could have a que forming.

NEXT on the chopping block, this time not a dish🙂

Myself, I am still unclear whether it is ok to off murderers V just letting them rot in jail.

If they get life without parole they are also out of harms way permanently and besides, suppose some 20 yo kills and goes to prison, serves 50 years, comes out age 70, do you think that dude will still be going on fits of rage?

For one thing, he would only be able to get a gun on the black market, I guess easy enough to do but at least he won't be able to go to the nearest sports shop and get an AR15 or whatever.

But still, after 50 odd years in solitary, he wouldn't have the health to start killing again, he would be weak and disoriented and probably would have to live in some kind of assigned home or some such.

I would think if I were in that boat, 50 years confinement would break ME down for sure, I don't know if I would remember I was a human being after that much time in solitary.

@zahlanzi said
"Your propensity to insult is the direct result of the failure of your argument"
I am not arguing. Why is this so hard to understand. I am not presenting arguments to combat the "more crimes should get the death penalty" statement because i don't want to, because it's idiotic.

"So far you have only expressed support for sick criminals"
Aaand i am not going to bother ad ...[text shortened]... hing without insulting you. Will you consider any off it? or am i again "supporting sick criminals"?

You don’t bother. Strange, the rest of us bother.
Funny you mention people going homeless while we support and feed vicious criminals, $60k each. What are you saying? You like that formula. Liberals. A confused lot.