Louisiana child rapist on death row.

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?

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. 😖hifty:

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.