Louisiana child rapist on death row.

Why can't they do both?

How long are most people on Death row before they're killed? Years right? Surely they can be butt****ed by the other inmates before they're killed.

EDIT- Or is death row like solitary confinement?

I believe death row inmates are one per cell and get very little free time.

Impediment is in the penal business, he'd know for certain.

Was, Mattie delivers beer for Anheuser Busch now.

Death Penalty=whole lotta wrong

He's not entitled to conjugal visits, is he?

Originally posted by botankus
He's not entitled to conjugal visits, is he?

Are you kidding me? The only conjugal visits he would wantt would be arranged by Michael Jackson....

"....YES..."

Originally posted by Robtard
I believe death row inmates are one per cell and get very little free time.

Impediment is in the penal business, he'd know for certain.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Was, Mattie delivers beer for Anheuser Busch now.

Death Row inmates are considered as ad seg (administrative segregation) inmates. This means that they stay in their cell 23 hours a day with 1 hour of recreation a day, beit outside rec with sports equipment/free weights or dayroom rec watching t.v and such. There is only 1 inmate per house. They eat, sleep, and shit in their house (that's what we call a cell in this business) and are allowed to smoke tobacco for some reason. I guess it is supposed to "allow for a non-stressful environment", whatever the f*ck that means. And the Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice does not allow inmates to have conjugal visits.

D.R. inmates, at least the ones that I have encountered, are ultra-religious. It's funny to me, and not because I'm an atheist, that people turn to religion when it's certain that they're gonna die and see what is really after life. They never want to act this way when they still have an opportunity for a free life.

Oh, well.

I am also, very much, pro-death penalty.

Originally posted by Impediment
I am also, very much, pro-death penalty.

Amen to that, me too.

Oh well.....

How people can be pro death penalty in the way it is practiced in the US is beyond me. I think there should be a vote and only those voting pro death penalty can be sentenced to it. Seems fair.

You don't think that a man who rapes children deserves to die? Or, at the very least, get his genitals removed?

He's trying to lure you into his ethical ideas....don't be fooled.

Originally posted by Impediment
You don't think that a man who rapes children deserves to die? Or, at the very least, get his genitals removed?

Inded. Neither.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
He's trying to lure you into his ethical ideas....don't be fooled.

Yeah, my ethical ideas of "killing people is bad". Lunacy.

Originally posted by Bardock42


Yeah, my ethical ideas of "killing people is bad". Lunacy.

Nice try....

I guess I'm of the belief that a horrible excuse for a human who rapes adolescent children and destroys their innocence and scars them for life needs to be beaten with rubber hoses, have his penis cut off, and then shot. ermmsrug

Dare I say what we should do with a child murderer? Or any kind of murderer, really.

Originally posted by Bardock42
How people can be pro death penalty in the way it is practiced in the US is beyond me. I think there should be a vote and only those voting pro death penalty can be sentenced to it. Seems fair.

What exactly do you mean by "way it is practiced in the US", because there are countries who kill for lesser reasons and in less humane ways, if you were indeed saying US = Barbaric.

Bardock, Impediment feels so strong about this because he was around them AND being a father can change the way you feel about these people. If some a**hole molested or killed one of my children, I would want to personally beat the shit out of that person and maybe even kill them if my child's life ended in a horrible way. According to my religion, it wouldn't be "shedding innocent blood" so I wouldn't get in THAT much trouble with my God for it.

When it gets personal, it becomes harder to think straight or rationally take action. Its easy for me to say, "Put them through the system and give 'em life in prison."

Originally posted by Robtard
What exactly do you mean by "way it is practiced in the US", because there are countries who kill for lesser reasons and in less humane ways, if you were indeed saying US = Barbaric. Yeah. US = barbaric. What des it matter that there are worse?

Originally posted by Impediment
I guess I'm of the belief that a horrible excuse for a human who rapes adolescent children and destroys their innocence and scars them for life needs to be beaten with rubber hoses, have his penis cut off, and then shot. ermmsrug

Dare I say what we should do with a child murderer? Or any kind of murderer, really. Yep, that's sadly how a slight majority of your people feel, too, forcing everyone in your country to have their government kill people in their name.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Bardock, Impediment feels so strong about this because he was around them AND being a father can change the way you feel about these people. If some a**hole molested or killed one of my children, I would want to personally beat the shit out of that person and maybe even kill them if my child's life ended in a horrible way. According to my religion, it wouldn't be "shedding innocent blood" so I wouldn't get in THAT much trouble with my God for it.

When it gets personal, it becomes harder to think straight or rationally take action. Its easy for me to say, "Put them through the system and give 'em life in prison."
And?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah. US = barbaric. What des it matter that there are worse?

I was just curious if that is what you meant.

Another question, as far as your ethics of "not killing people", how ethical is it to lock a person up in a small cell until they die? It could be argued that being caged forever is far worse than death.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And?

"And?" what? What are you "and"ing about? I made several points. A blanket "And?" doesn't make much sense either since I reveled two sides of a coin.

If I wasn't a father, I would still feel the same way. However, I agree with dadudemon's statement about how it's easy to see things from a different angle when you are, in fact, a parent.

Originally posted by Robtard
Another question, as far as your ethics of "not killing people", how ethical is it to lock a person up in a small cell until they die? It could be argued that being caged forever is far worse than death.

I made that point already and cited a somewhat popular short story about that point. "The Bet"

Originally posted by Robtard
I was just curious if that is what you meant.

Another question, as far as your ethics of "not killing people", how ethical is it to lock a person up in a small cell until they die? It could be argued that being caged forever is far worse than death. It could be. And I'd give every person in this world the choice to be assisted in killing themselves if they don't want to endure it (or anything).

How many people do you think would honestly prefer the death penalty for themselves than the being locked up?

Originally posted by dadudemon
"And?" what? What are you "and"ing about? I made several points. A blanket "And?" doesn't make much sense either since I reveled two sides of a coin. You said some odd things. Being a parent might change ones outlook, what does it matter to rational debate though?

Originally posted by Bardock42
It could be. And I'd give every person in this world the choice to be assisted in killing themselves if they don't want to endure it (or anything).

How many people do you think would honestly prefer the death penalty for themselves than the being locked up?

Not sure, I'd guess less would prefer death.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Being a parent might change ones outlook, what does it matter to rational debate though?

Easy to say, sir, if you're not a father, in my opinion.

Originally posted by Bardock42
How many people do you think would honestly prefer the death penalty for themselves than the being locked up?

That's a good point. I would assume that it wouldn't be a 50/50 type of thing as was indirectly implied by "The Bet"

Originally posted by Impediment
Easy to say, sir, if you're not a father, in my opinion.

Yeah, also logical. I don't deny that I might wish for vengeance if a I or a person dear to me got wronged, it does not change the truth of the matter though. I might want people to be killed in my wrath, but it doesn't make it right or intelligent. How am I different to them if I kill or let kill them when they are harmless?

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's a good point. I would assume that it wouldn't be a 50/50 type of thing as was indirectly implied by "The Bet" As I said. I believe that every human being should have the right to end their life at any point they choose.

So you would be in favor of a "self induced" death penalty, then?

Originally posted by Impediment
So you would be in favor of a "self induced" death penalty, then? Yeah.

Originally posted by lord xyz
kill him and mutilate his body. The sick man should be tortured and raped for this. And if he doesn't like it, tough. He shouldn't have raped those children.

Also, anyone who doesn't agree is as ****ed up as he is. And obviously should be killed in the same fashion you just proposed.

I think he should have the same thing done to him as he did to those children. It's sad that kids cant even play outside without some sick f*ck staring at them. Anybody, man or woman, that does this kind of sh*t to an innocent child deserves to die.

Originally posted by BlackSunshine
I think he should have the same thing done to him as he did to those children.

Being raped by himself?

Doubt he'd mind.

I've never agreed with the government having the power to take away someones life. The whole point of the prison system is to keep threats to society away from that which they are a threat to. What exact reasons are there to kill someone for committing crimes? Revenge, that's all it boils down to, that's not something that government should have any part in whatsoever.

You bring up an interesting point with 'government & revenge.' What would you say to a system where the murdered (raped in this case) victims family gets to decide if they want the person dead; if so they're the ones that have to pull the trigger, inject the needle, flip the switch, what have you?

Originally posted by Robtard
You bring up an interesting point with 'government & revenge.' What would you say to a system where the murdered (raped in this case) victims family gets to decide if they want the person dead; if so they're the ones that have to pull the trigger, inject the needle, flip the switch, what have you? All for that system. If the executeds' family and friends then get to decide whether they want the family of the first victim dead. If so they're the ones that have to pull the trigger, inject the needle, flip the switch, etc.

Originally posted by dadudemon


When it gets personal, it becomes harder to think straight or rationally take action.

Which is why sensible people make the decision.

Well, should do.

Originally posted by Robtard
You bring up an interesting point with 'government & revenge.' What would you say to a system where the murdered (raped in this case) victims family gets to decide if they want him dead; if so they're the ones that have to pull the trigger, inject the needle, flip the switch, what have you?

I wouldn't agree with it. The system is still advocating it, which I don't agree with, I don't think that personal feelings or vendettas should come into any sort of criminal law.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You said some odd things. Being a parent might change ones outlook, what does it matter to rational debate though?

I don't think our comments were all that different. I showed the contrast between the two different perspectives and I used words to directly imply that a parent would want something irrationally BECAUSE they are a parent.

This guy was more to the point I was making.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Which is why sensible people make the decision.

Well, should do.

The parent wants justice(punishment) because they are the parent and the victim prolly wants his life. That was my point.


I have a question just for you and please answer honestly:

What would you do immediately after you walked in on a stranger molesting/raping your child?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I have a question just for you and please answer honestly:

What would you do immediately after you walked in on a stranger molesting/raping your child?

Beat the absolute shit out of them, possibly kill them. Doesn't really have anything to do with the death penalty, though.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't think our comments were all that different. I showed the contrast between the two different perspectives and I used words to directly imply that a parent would want something irrationally BECAUSE they are a parent.

This guy was more to the point I was making.



The parent wants justice(punishment) because they are the parent and the victim prolly wants his life. That was my point.


I have a question just for you and please answer honestly:

What would you do immediately after you walked in on a stranger molesting/raping your child? I can't answer that "honestly" I don't have a child, I have never been in a similar situation, I have no experience to go by in answering it.

And again, my point is that though you are right that parents will feel irrationally and emotional about it, it doesn't matter in this objective debate.

So are we just talking about what should this guy recieve for this in addition or what?

Originally posted by dadudemon

I have a question just for you and please answer honestly:

What would you do immediately after you walked in on a stranger molesting/raping your child?

Don't know. Hasn't happened; won't happen. Doesn't really affect the argument on the death penalty either way.

Why is everyone answering the question "just for me". You guys are thiefing assholes.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Don't know. Hasn't happened; won't happen. Doesn't really affect the argument on the death penalty either way.

How does it not affect it?

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Beat the absolute shit out of them, possibly kill them. Doesn't really have anything to do with the death penalty, though.

I appreciate your honesty. Quite literally, it is your job as a parent to protect your children. (I am using "your" as the ambiguous "you". I know you're not a parent.) Since I would be fairly pissed myself, I am sure I would act irrationally and beat the perverts ass while my wife called the police.

And to address your second statement...see below.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I can't answer that "honestly" I don't have a child, I have never been in a similar situation, I have no experience to go by in answering it.

And again, my point is that though you are right that parents will feel irrationally and emotional about it, it doesn't matter in this objective debate.

Since we live in a Democratic Republic, obviously it matters even an "objective" debate. A sympathetic parent's vote counts too.

Creating laws that can appease everyone is VERY difficult. You have to come up with complex policies that will not completely satisfy everyone.

The offended parent demands justice. The criminal demands mercy. The moralist professes the justice to be immoral. The cynical taxpayer demands less money be spent and is, therefore, indirectly for the justice. The optimistic psychologist demands rehabilitation...pissing off the cynical taxpayer and offended parent.


Of course, there are parents who are pro-life and are ridiculously benevolent and forgiving like those Amish people were to that killer who broke into their school.



I fall under the cynical taxpayer and optimistic psychologist category. Kill the bastard because I don't want to foot the bill for his incarceration but rehab that criminal if they are found to be "rehabable". Those two ideals directly contradict each other, imo, so my stance is absurdly confused.



Edit-Bardock, I see your response to the "parent" question. One thing that makes humans so intelligent is our ablity to place ourselves into others positions and judge our actions based on our comprehension of that situation. You are more than intelligent enough run through a "sympathetic" scenario. However, I won't press the issue further as you don't want to answer the question because you do not feel you could answer properly because you are not a parent.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Don't know. Hasn't happened; won't happen. Doesn't really affect the argument on the death penalty either way.

See my response to that...as you probably will.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why is everyone answering the question "just for me". You guys are thiefing assholes.



1. That was funny.
2. You also spelled it "thiefing".

Originally posted by dadudemon

Since we live in a Democratic Republic, obviously it matters even an "objective" debate. A sympathetic parent's vote counts too.

No, it does not. It matters to what happens in that democratic society. It doesn't matter to the logical arguments.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Creating laws that can appease everyone is VERY difficult. You have to come up with complex policies that will not completely satisfy everyone.

True, somehow being responsible for the death of hundreds of people does not suit everyone.

Originally posted by dadudemon

The offended parent demands justice. The criminal demands mercy. The moralist professes the justice to be immoral. The cynical taxpayer demands less money be spent and is, therefore, indirectly for the justice. The optimistic psychologist demands rehabilitation...pissing off the cynical taxpayer and offended parent.


Of course, there are parents who are pro-life and are ridiculously benevolent and forgiving like those Amish people were to that killer who broke into their school.

Ranting about trivial stuff.


Originally posted by dadudemon

I fall under the cynical taxpayer and optimistic psychologist category. Kill the bastard because I don't want to foot the bill for his incarceration but rehab that criminal if they are found to be "rehabable". Those two ideals directly contradict each other, imo, so my stance is absurdly confused.

Would make sense if executions weren't so darn expensive, eh?


Originally posted by dadudemon

Edit-Bardock, I see your response to the "parent" question. One thing that makes humans so intelligent is our ablity to place ourselves into others positions and judge our actions based on our comprehension of that situation. You are more than intelligent enough run through a "sympathetic" scenario. However, I won't press the issue further as you don't want to answer the question because you do not feel you could answer properly because you are not a parent.

Flattering but not true. I don't feel the ability to make an accurate statement about such a situation.

Originally posted by chithappens
How does it not affect it?

How does it?

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, it does not. It matters to what happens in that democratic society. It doesn't matter to the logical arguments.

If social arguments could be settled with simple logic, then you would have a point. When you have parents AND others who want things that irrational to others, you are going end up with...you get the point.


Also, your logic is not objective either. It is flawed because it is based on the construct of perceived universal morality. Person A's morality is not better than Person B's and vice versa. They are simply morals.

Unless God is real and their are fundamental morals, no one can claim morals can be used to objectively and logically used in a debate.

Originally posted by Bardock42
True, somehow being responsible for the death of hundreds of people does not suit everyone.

I agree.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Ranting about trivial stuff.

Very much on topic. Death penalty with this molester is being discussed. I was demonstrating some of the different perspectives held by people when it comes to "justice".




Originally posted by Bardock42
Would make sense if executions weren't so darn expensive, eh?

Absolutely. But is it more expensive to go through 5 years of appeals in the court system than it is to keep that person incarcerated for 50+ years?




Originally posted by Bardock42
Flattering but not true. I don't feel the ability to make an accurate statement about such a situation.

.....t-that's what I said.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If social arguments could be settled with simple logic, then you would have a point. When you have parents AND others who want things that irrational to others, you are going end up with...you get the point.


Also, your logic is not objective either. It is flawed because it is based on the construct of perceived universal morality. Person A's morality is not better than Person B's and vice versa. They are simply morals.

Unless God is real and their are fundamental morals, no one can claim morals can be used to objectively and logically used in a debate.



I agree.



Very much on topic. Death penalty with this molester is being discussed. I was demonstrating some of the different perspectives held by people when it comes to "justice".






Absolutely. But is it more expensive to go through 5 years of appeals in the court system than it is to keep that person incarcerated for 50+ years?






.....t-that's what I said. Pointless to argue with you, you don't reply to my statements, but wander in your own magical dream world.

Good

Originally posted by Bardock42
And obviously should be killed in the same fashion you just proposed. Of course.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Pointless to argue with you, you don't reply to my statements, but wander in your own magical dream world.

You're in a "mood" today.


Edit- I read back over my post....man, I made a lot of mistakes. I missed some "are"s and added too many words at some parts... a server went down earlier so I was trying to hurry up and type that before another person e-mailed/called me with a complaint.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're in a "mood" today. Yeah, a mood not to put up with idiotic arguments.

Your incorrect assumptions tire me.

Originally posted by dadudemon
What would you do immediately after you walked in on a stranger molesting/raping your child?

Easy answer: I'd kill them. No questions asked. If I found anyone, family, friend, or stranger, raping my daughter, I'd kill them.

Originally posted by Impediment
Easy answer: I'd kill them. No questions asked. If I found anyone, family, friend, or stranger, raping my daughter, I'd kill them. Glad you feel that everyone has to share that burden on your conscience.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, a mood not to put up with idiotic arguments.

Your incorrect assumptions tire me.

So you did understand me?

Good.


Then you must have realized that your "logic" point is...well..pointless. It would seem that you have realized this.

Originally posted by dadudemon
What would you do immediately after you walked in on a stranger molesting/raping your child?

Join them.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So you did understand me?

Good.


Then you must have realized that your "logic" point is...well..pointless. It would seem that you have realized this. Not really. There are logical arguments pro and con death penalty not based on subjective morals. A mormon admitting to them being subjective is interesting though. Either way you are incorrect to accuse me of disregarding subjective morals.

Originally posted by BackFire
Join them.




you're sick...you're SICK!

Originally posted by Impediment
Easy answer: I'd kill them. No questions asked. If I found anyone, family, friend, or stranger, raping my daughter, I'd kill them.

It does bother just a tad that people are so hesistant to just be honest like this

Originally posted by chithappens
It does bother just a tad that people are so hesistant to just be honest like this Haha, so the honest thing is to say you'd kill the person?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Glad you feel that everyone has to share that burden on your conscience.

I'm not expecting everyone to share my "burden" of fatherly protection instincts. I just hope that one day, if and when you become a father, you can understand where I am coming from, is all.

Originally posted by Impediment
I'm not expecting everyone to share my "burden" of fatherly protection instincts. I just hope that one day, if and when you become a father, you can understand where I am coming from, is all. I can understand it. I don't blame you for it. I doubt I would do the same, but I have sympathy for people in such a situation. I just don't think that society has to give in to the blind revenge a family member, maybe justifiably, has. If you kill them saving your someone or yourself I am all for it, but we are talking about killing someone that has been rendered harmless. Not my idea of justice.

What do you call being "rendered harmless"? If a child molester/rapist is caught, and gets 15 years imprisonment, serves his sentence, is released and does the very same exact cruel act on another child, is that harmless? Is that justice served?

If they're in prison for life, they're rendered harmless.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I can understand it. I don't blame you for it. I doubt I would do the same, but I have sympathy for people in such a situation. I just don't think that society has to give in to the blind revenge a family member, maybe justifiably, has. If you kill them saving your someone or yourself I am all for it, but we are talking about killing someone that has been rendered harmless. Not my idea of justice.

If you were a parent, you'd probably be singing a different tune. This is in regards to you walking in and catching someone raping your child.

I was a correctional officer for 5+ years. I've seen child rapists/molesters be released from sentences of less than 10 years. It's absolutely appalling to me.

Originally posted by BackFire
If they're in prison for life, they're rendered harmless.

False. Prisoners kill other prisoners and guards, it happens.

It is appalling. So keep them there longer, don't need to kill them.

Originally posted by Robtard
If you were a parent, you'd probably be singing a different tune. This is in regards to you walking in and catching someone raping your child. It doesn't matter though.

Also, what the pervert said.

Originally posted by Robtard
False. Prisoners kill other prisoners and guards, it happens.

Harmless to those on the outside.

Originally posted by BackFire
It is appalling. So keep them there longer, don't need to kill them.

Tell that to the board of the Sex Offender Treatment Program of Texas who decides that the inmate is fit to be released from rehabilitative therapy and the parole board who releases them into the world.

Originally posted by Impediment
Tell that to the board of the Sex Offender Treatment Program of Texas who decides that the inmate is fit to be released from rehabilitative therapy and the parole board who releases them into the world.

Yes. That sucks.

But why kill them as a result?

Originally posted by BackFire
Harmless to those on the outside.

Until they are released back into the world.

I was referring only to those who are there for life.

Meaning, they won't get released.

Originally posted by Impediment
Tell that to the board of the Sex Offender Treatment Program of Texas who decides that the inmate is fit to be released from rehabilitative therapy and the parole board who releases them into the world. Does that mean you generally agree that life in prison (without parole) would be a suitable alternative to the death penalty?

Originally posted by BackFire
Yes. That sucks.

But why kill them as a result?

I'm of the opinion that sex offenders are incurable. Once they rape and molest a child, they will always have to tendencies to do so. I guess I'm just rather brutal that way.

Originally posted by BackFire
Yes. That sucks.

But why kill them as a result?

Death would guarantee they never do it again, that's certainly a plus. Just saying.

Originally posted by Impediment
I'm of the opinion that sex offenders are incurable. Once they rape and molest a child, they will always have to tendencies to do so. I guess I'm just rather brutal that way. So, why not put them away for life?

Originally posted by Robtard
Death would guarantee they never do it again, that's certainly a plus. Just saying.

So would putting them away for life.

Yeah, what the German pedophile said.

Originally posted by Robtard
Death would guarantee they never do it again, that's certainly a plus. Just saying. True. But then there is the thing about killing an innocent person. Which is, at least for me, definately a minus.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I can understand it. I don't blame you for it. I doubt I would do the same, but I have sympathy for people in such a situation. I just don't think that society has to give in to the blind revenge a family member, maybe justifiably, has. If you kill them saving your someone or yourself I am all for it, but we are talking about killing someone that has been rendered harmless. Not my idea of justice.


Nine. Killing the person would NOT be protecting your child. All that would be necessary would be pulling them off your child and calling the police. Based on the common psychological profile of a child molester/child rapist, you wouldn't have very much trouble at all scaring them off. Most would just run if caught by an adult.

The point of the question was to show that despite your professions of objectivity and rational thought, you are just as human as any parent is. You would be taking justice into your own hands. I should have seen that your above perspective would be held because you like anarchy and hate government. But that didn't make sense since you suggested that cascade of killing with the family administered death penalty.



Also, because you are a big person, I don't think you would have a hard time beating someone to death.

Originally posted by BackFire
I was referring only to those who are there for life.

Meaning, they won't get released.

True, there are a percentage of rapists and molesters who are incarcerated for life, but the majority, shockingly, is released back into the world after only a short stint of imprisonment.


Originally posted by Bardock42
Does that mean you generally agree that life in prison (without parole) would be a suitable alternative to the death penalty?

To be fair, maybe. But my natural protective instincts as a dad tell me to kill the motherf*cker.

Originally posted by Bardock42
So, why not put them away for life?

Better to spend $5,000 on an execution than $35,000 a year to feed and house the bastard, in my opinion.

Originally posted by Bardock42
True. But then there is the thing about killing an innocent person. Which is, at least for me, definately a minus.

Come on now, the margin for error is slim, especially when they're caught "red-handed", outright confess, or the evidence is overwhelming.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Nine. Killing the person would NOT be protecting your child. All that would be necessary would be pulling them off your child and calling the police. Based on the common psychological profile of a child molester/child rapist, you wouldn't have very much trouble at all scaring them off. Most would just run if caught by an adult.

See, that's why I can't respect you. That is in no way what I said.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The point of the question was to show that despite your professions of objectivity and rational thought, you are just as human as any parent is. You would be taking justice into your own hands. I should have seen that your above perspective would be held because you like anarchy and hate government. But that didn't make sense since you suggested that cascade of killing with the family administered death penalty.

Fail again. I didn't speak for a death penalty ever. I satirized the ideas of death penalty supporters. Read what I say, stop making up your own stuff. If something is unclear just ask, don't run with your idea of what I might be saying.


Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, because you are a big person, I don't think you would have a hard time beating someone to death.

What does it matter.

Originally posted by Robtard
Come on now, the margin for error is slim, especially when they're caught "red-handed", outright confess, or the evidence is overwhelming.

Slim isn't good enough. Until the justice system is competent enough to ensure that NO innocent person will ever get put to death, it should not exist. Killing one innocent person through error is a much greater argument against the current incarnation of capital punishment than anyone could make.

Originally posted by Robtard
Come on now, the margin for error is slim, especially when they're caught "red-handed", outright confess, or the evidence is overwhelming. True, yet there were apparently hundreds released after a time served on death row. It happens. How to know that one day won't be killed. Really, thinking about it, it is likely it already happened.

Originally posted by Impediment
Better to spend $5,000 on an execution than $35,000 a year to feed and house the bastard, in my opinion. Well, the average time of death row is above 10 years. The price of appeals and their specific housing is larger as well. I don't know how true it is, but there are rumours that on average it is more expensive to kill someone via death penalty than to lock them away for life. And then there is te thing about killing a human.

It has happened, many innocent people have been executed. They were only proven innocent after they were dead once new technology was advanced.

Originally posted by BackFire
It has happened, many innocent people have been executed. They were only proven innocent after they were dead once new technology was advanced.

See, you're confusing me now. You'll "LoL" at some innocent person being anallly raped, but you have the utmost compassion for rapist, murderers and now the supreme "lol" of "opps, I guess Johnson was innocent."

Is because rape is funny.

Originally posted by Bardock42
the average time of death row is above 10 years. The price of appeals and their specific housing is larger as well. I don't know how true it is, but there are rumours that on average it is more expensive to kill someone via death penalty than to lock them away for life.

If I remember correctly, at least here in Texas, it cost about $5,000 to administer the 3 drug cocktail for lethal injection. Why, for f*cks sake, it costs that much to administer sodium thiopental, pancuronium bromide, and potassium chloride I'll never know. It costs the state of Texas, at the very least, $35,000 per year for housing, food, clothing, and medical care.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And then there is the thing about killing a human.

I can respect you respecting the value of human life, but do you really value the life of a child molesting animal that much to deny execution?

Originally posted by Bardock42
See, that's why I can't respect you. That is in no way what I said.

You posted:



My bad for misinterpreting what you meant. Considering you were responding to a post that was a response to my question to you, I assumed that you illogically thought that it would be necessary to save your child by killing the rapist which was illogical. I had no idea that you were taking it off topic and talking about defending yourself or your child in general.





Originally posted by Bardock42
Fail again. I didn't speak for a death penalty ever. I satirized the ideas of death penalty supporters. Read what I say, stop making up your own stuff. If something is unclear just ask, don't run with your idea of what I might be saying.

Sorry, that doesn't apply in this scenario. I was referring to this post:

Originally posted by Bardock42
All for that system. If the executeds' family and friends then get to decide whether they want the family of the first victim dead. If so they're the ones that have to pull the trigger, inject the needle, flip the switch, etc.

You WERE speaking of the death penalty. I didn't make anything up. I was referencing this post. It was obvious that you were satirizing death penalty supporters. You can't pretend that you didn't make a post so that you can claim I make points up that you posted.




Originally posted by Bardock42
What does it matter.

Because it is fully within an angry Bardock's power to kill someone in a rage...furthering my point of the question.

Originally posted by Impediment
If I remember correctly, at least here in Texas, it cost about $5,000 to administer the 3 drug cocktail for lethal injection. Why, for f*cks sake, it costs that much to administer sodium thiopental, pancuronium bromide, and potassium chloride I'll never know. It costs the state of Texas, at the very least, $35,000 per year for housing, food, clothing, and medical care.

Yes, but that leaves out their housing for 10+ years. The appeals they get. The amount of extra guarding and care they get, etc. If everyone that was sentenced to death was going to be taken to the gas chamber the next day the economic argument would make sense. I am sure Iran saves a shitload on money on it, but in the US there are "luckily" more issues to consider.

Originally posted by Impediment
I can respect you respecting the value of human life, but do you really value the life of a child molesting animal that much to deny execution?

Yes. To me that's not a question.

Originally posted by Impediment
If I remember correctly, at least here in Texas, it cost about $5,000 to administer the 3 drug cocktail for lethal injection. Why, for f*cks sake, it costs that much to administer sodium thiopental, pancuronium bromide, and potassium chloride I'll never know. It costs the state of Texas, at the very least, $35,000 per year for housing, food, clothing, and medical care.


I searched for some numbers on this before and I couldn't find any. Its great to have SOME sort of numbers to go by here.

I would also like to streamline the justice process so that they are stuck in the court system eating up tax payer money. I would also like a justice system that has a perfect conviction rate.

child rapists need to be executed quick and fast. i cant stand these people.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, but that leaves out their housing for 10+ years. The appeals they get. The amount of extra guarding and care they get, etc. If everyone that was sentenced to death was going to be taken to the gas chamber the next day the economic argument would make sense. I am sure Iran saves a shitload on money on it, but in the US there are "luckily" more issues to consider.



Yes. To me that's not a question.

So, since you're of the opinion that the rapist needs to be locked up for life, that still leaves the chance, greater than slim, that the rapist will be paroled back into the world and, most likely, commit his horrible act again on another innocent child. Would you not concede to the possibility of chemical castration as a reasonable alternative?

Originally posted by dadudemon
You posted:



My bad for misinterpreting what you meant. Considering you were responding to a post that was a response to my question to you, I assumed that you illogically thought that it would be necessary to save your child by killing the rapist which was illogical. I had no idea that you were taking it off topic and talking about defending yourself or your child in general.


It's okay. I guess it could be confusing. Just try to ask me if that happens, I don't appreciate you always making judgements on the assumption that I did NOT think of a specific aspect. What I meant to say, and what I hold it to say, is that I am for killing someone only in self defense. I wasn't referring to this specific scenario as I knew, and as you rightly pointed out, that killing them would not necessarily, nor even likely, be in defense of danger.




Originally posted by dadudemon
Sorry, that doesn't apply in this scenario. I was referring to this post:




You WERE speaking of the death penalty. I didn't make anything up. I was referencing this post. It was obvious that you were satirizing death penalty supporters. You can't pretend that you didn't make a post so that you can claim I make points up that you posted.

That was one of the posts I assumed you were referring to as well. I was making two satirical jokes. The one about suggesting that your idea of the family should have the decision should lead to the family of the now new victim to have a decision. And the other about only those being pro-death penalty being subject to it. Obviously neither of it is part of my philosophy. It was to illuminate a point. One that the death penalty creates new killers and the other that the minority gets oppressed by it.



Originally posted by dadudemon
Because it is fully within an angry Bardock's power to kill someone in a rage...furthering my point of the question.

I am not convinced I have that kind of ability. And it doesn't matter.

Or just don't parole them.

Originally posted by BackFire
Or just don't parole them.

Unfortunately, the society we live in seems to regularly parole these cretins back into the world.

Originally posted by Impediment
So, since you're of the opinion that the rapist needs to be locked up for life, that still leaves the chance, greater than slim, that the rapist will be paroled back into the world and, most likely, commit his horrible act again on another innocent child. Would you not concede to the possibility of chemical castration as a reasonable alternative? I kinda find that cruel. So no.


really, in the case of child rapists, people go so far beyond and eye for an eye it is ridiculous.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I kinda find that cruel. So no.


really, in the case of child rapists, people go so far beyond and eye for an eye it is ridiculous.

What if the rapist willingly agreed to be chemically castrated to be paroled? That is, in fact, an option given to sex offenders here in the Texas penal system. I, personally, would worry that the rapist would still be a sexual predator even without a functioning libido.

Originally posted by Impediment
What if the rapist willingly agreed to be chemically castrated to be paroled? That is, in fact, an option given to sex offenders here in the Texas penal system. I, personally, would worry that the rapist would still be a sexual predator even without a functioning libido.

Haha, well, I don't think I can make sufficiently intelligent statements about that. It seems to depend strongly on the individual.

child molesters get a slap on the wrist in chicago. its outrages that if some one steals a car the max they get is i believe 10 years wile a pedo gets 2 to 3 years. its a joke

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's okay. I guess it could be confusing. Just try to ask me if that happens, I don't appreciate you always making judgements on the assumption that I did NOT think of a specific aspect. What I meant to say, and what I hold it to say, is that I am for killing someone only in self defense. I wasn't referring to this specific scenario as I knew, and as you rightly pointed out, that killing them would not necessarily, nor even likely, be in defense of danger.

Good. It looks like we resolved that portion amicably. And yes, i have been trying to ask more often when what I assume could be wrong, but, as you can see, that is not always the case.






Originally posted by Bardock42
That was one of the posts I assumed you were referring to as well. I was making two satirical jokes. The one about suggesting that your idea of the family should have the decision should lead to the family of the now new victim to have a decision. And the other about only those being pro-death penalty being subject to it. Obviously neither of it is part of my philosophy. It was to illuminate a point. One that the death penalty creates new killers and the other that the minority gets oppressed by it.

It wasn't my idea that the family should be able to have that control. It was Robtard or someone...I don't remember.

And yes, I was aware that that was your stance before this thread. We have argued about this before, remember.





Originally posted by Bardock42
I am not convinced I have that kind of ability. And it doesn't matter.

You DO have that ability. You are a big guy. Those fists can bring some serious inertia.

It only mattered to the question I posed and not directly the thread...so I agree, it didn't matter directly to the thread.

I once knew an inmate who served a 13 year sentence for raping his 4 year old daughter and giving her gonorrhea. I happened to know him upon his release date, and he said that when he got home and away from this place, he intended to give his life to Jesus and atone for his sins he committed. My whole body quivered with fear that he might do the same thing again.

Were it up to me, he would have been relived of his libido.

Originally posted by Impediment
Unfortunately, the society we live in seems to regularly parole these cretins back into the world.

So were that not the case, that would be a preferable state of affairs?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I kinda find that cruel. So no.


really, in the case of child rapists, people go so far beyond and eye for an eye it is ridiculous.

Just let the victim's family rape the offender's family. Then everybody's happy.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
So were that not the case, that would be a preferable state of affairs?

To be locked away for life? To be fair to this debate..............maybe. But I still stand by my convictions as a father that harsher justice is called for.

'Harsher justice' isn't really a sensible formulation.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
'Harsher justice' isn't really a sensible formulation.

Why not?

Describe "sensible".

Webster's dictionary defines a wedding as 'the process of removing weeds from one's garden.'

You lost me, sir.

Look up.

Originally posted by Bardock42

really, in the case of child rapists, people go so far beyond and eye for an eye it is ridiculous.

The thought of children being harmed causes that. Maybe it's because you're not a parent, that you are ignorant of the notion of "over protection". I don't mean that in an insulting way either.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Look up.

I know perfectly well what it means. What I meant was "what's your point"?

Originally posted by Robtard
The thought of children being harmed causes that. Maybe it's because you're not a parent, that you are ignorant of the notion of "over protection". I don't mean that in an insulting way either. I'm not ignorant of it. I just don't share the view nor do I find it intelligent.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Webster's dictionary defines a wedding as 'the process of removing weeds from one's garden.'

Did you you mean "weeding"?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Did you you mean "weeding"?

No.

Did you mean 'Did you mean "weeding"?' ?

What was your point, Victor?

Originally posted by BackFire
Or just don't parole them.

Not giving parole makes them more determine to escape.
Don't tell me you didn't see Natural Born Killers.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
No.

Did you mean 'Did you mean "weeding"?' ?

Yes you did.

Yes I did.

Originally posted by Impediment
What was your point, Victor?

I lost interest when you asked for the definition of sensible.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes you did.

Yes I did.

No. Not a Simpsons fan?

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
No. Not a Simpsons fan?


DAMN!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I lost interest when you asked for the definition of sensible.

Fair enough. I have no time for pretentious smart-ass wannabe know-it-alls.

Originally posted by Impediment
Fair enough. I have no time for pretentious smart-ass wannabe know-it-alls.

Yeah, fancy knowing what sensible means.

Said the "sensible" person.

Anyone have anything sensible to add?

You're ugly and gay.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Haha, so the honest thing is to say you'd kill the person?

Not really, but to act as if you would be calm and relaxed and let the system work rather than put your hands on them, if given the chance, is bullshit

These theoretical questions really can't be taken seriously. They're meaningless. For one, they're difficult (and impossible, for some) to answer because you can't just tansport yourself to that situation with ease. I couldn't give an answer because I wouldn't know what I'd do, it would have to actually happen. I can't imagine the rage and fear and sadness and confusion that would inherently fill me should I walk in on something like this, so to say "well, I'd do this" would be wholly dishonest for me.

Also, this talk is about justice, which exists in order to keep these kinds of subjective feelings OUT of the decision. Justice must be cold and calculated, it can't start taking into account the emotions involved, its purpose is to be fair and logical. Speaking of something as subjective as what YOU would do if your child was being raped is irrelevant.

Originally posted by BackFire
You're ugly and gay.

No, come on. I know you've got it in you.

Originally posted by BackFire
These theoretical questions really can't be taken seriously. They're meaningless. For one, they're difficult (and impossible, for some) to answer because you can't just tansport yourself to that situation with ease. I couldn't give an answer because I wouldn't know what I'd do, it would have to actually happen. I can't imagine the rage and fear and sadness and confusion that would inherently fill me should I walk in on something like this, so to say "well, I'd do this" would be wholly dishonest for me.

Also, this talk is about justice, which exists in order to keep these kinds of subjective feelings OUT of the decision. Justice must be cold and calculated, it can't start taking into account the emotions involved, its purpose is to be fair and logical. Speaking of something as subjective as what YOU would do if your child was being raped is irrelevant.

Come on.

Who are you and what have you done with our people.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Cum on.

Knew it.

Dirty Mods............lol

Self projection....stop it. NOW, IT'S NOT GOOD FOR YOU!

wear glasses? <--- Look! Can't even do a simple thing anymore, I am so disturbed.....I'm filing a complaint...

It doesn't matter a bit if the death penalty is nothing more than revenge. The fact is it gets rid of scumbags that have murdered, raped, and hurt other people. Their punishment for their crimes is DEATH. Simple as that.

And even it is only revenge, so the **** what?

There is nothing wrong with revenge.

A system without the death penalty just coddles criminals, and creates a system where criminals know no fear.

Originally posted by BackFire


Also, this talk is about justice, which exists in order to keep these kinds of subjective feelings OUT of the decision. Justice must be cold and calculated, it can't start taking into account the emotions involved, its purpose is to be fair and logical. Speaking of something as subjective as what YOU would do if your child was being raped is irrelevant.

Justice needs a revision then.

A more revenge-ish approach. It needs more of an eye for eye approach.

Is it too late for "lawl child rape"?

Never.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Is it too late for "lawl child rape"?

And just what the hell is funny about child rape?

AIDS.

Originally posted by chithappens
Not really, but to act as if you would be calm and relaxed and let the system work rather than put your hands on them, if given the chance, is bullshit And who did that?

Originally posted by Kelmech_Ra
Justice needs a revision then.

A more revenge-ish approach. It needs more of an eye for eye approach. Why? Because you love your vengeance?

Originally posted by Bardock42
And who did that?

did what?

Originally posted by chithappens
did what?

" act as if you would be calm and relaxed and let the system work rather than put your hands on them, if given the chance"


I thought that would be pretty clear.