Originally posted by Newjak
Bardock did say people that act in that extremist way should be condemned regardless of what they are supposed to be backing Bran.Also it does not change the main topic of his point which is he feels that the number of extremists on both sides are disproportionate to each other.
Or that people throw out SJW to try and discredit people. At least I think this was a point he made earlier.
Yes, thank you, those are my main points.
Alright everyone, cut it out on the SJW discussion- and that's going to apply everywhere; I don't want it debated here. It is impossible to hold any sort of sane discussion about this area on the net- it always descends into insanity.
Generally speaking, I am very wary of people throwing such a label anyway- aside from anything else, it is not conductive to any sort of quality of discussion. If you're not happy with that, take it to PM, but I don't want it being thrown around in threads.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I think ethical treatment of prisoners is a reflection of a well functioning society.I don't really think the death penalty is something that should exist.
She killed someone, yes, and now she will be deprived of her freedom and separated from society for the rest of her life for that. There's no need to kill her or torture her.
No reason to be ethical to sub humans. And make no mistake: that is what this murderer is.
But no, instead she'll be a drain on society and probably live well into her 70s or 80s.
Originally posted by Surtur
No reason to be ethical to sub humans. And make no mistake: that is what this murderer is.But no, instead she'll be a drain on society and probably live well into her 70s or 80s.
You didn't address Newjak's point about the death penalty not actually being cheaper
[edit]Or what Ush said
Originally posted by Bardock42
You keep repeating the same accusations and misreadings of my point that I have already explained to you are not accurate interpretations. I won't argue for the strawman you are currently fighting.
Originally posted by Newjak
Bardock did say people that act in that extremist way should be condemned regardless of what they are supposed to be backing Bran.Also it does not change the main topic of his point which is he feels that the number of extremists on both sides are disproportionate to each other. Therefore trying to say that both sides has extremists doesn't take into context of that disparity in numbers.
Or that people throw out SJW to try and discredit people. At least I think this was a point he made earlier.
Since Ush posted I'll just say that's a big assumption and in no way supported. I was leading into something though
I had something else to say about the "anti sjw" side not actually hating women, minorities, or gays, and it just seems that way because of how mutated the issue has become. No one sane is against equality, just against how perverted it's become with blatant sexism and racism against the white man among others. Both sides adapted to each others ways and it's just a shitshow now.
Example: Not your shield, and I'm a minority and Adam is gay. But I digress. I would love to have this discussion though.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Just to check- is 'drain on society' really a central plank of your argument? Because as was suggested earlier, it costs a LOT more in the US to put someone through death row than life in prison.
The problem is the only reason it costs more is due to appeals and all that crap. This person admitted it, they flat out admitted it. They should get no appeals. This "person" didn't give the person they killed any second chances, so they do not deserve one.
So she will indeed be a drain. Not only because she'll spend life in prison getting her meals, medical needs, etc. taken care of, but because even if they gave her the death penalty it would be a drain because they'd let this murderer make all kinds of appeals. So we've created a system where no matter what we do..murderers will still a huge drain on society. Especially if putting her on death row would be MORE expensive then keeping her in prison well into her 70s or 80s? We can't even escape this drain, then. The system is broken when we let even admitted murderers be a burden on society in one way or another.
I also can't help but wonder if the fact this was a female played any part in the one juror not wanting to give her the death penalty. It has been made painfully clear that double standards in this country exist and not just against women, especially when it comes to justice.
Also maybe I am just misunderstanding this..it sounds like all but ONE juror was for the death penalty. But this makes no sense, if everyone but a single person was for it...I don't see why the vote of a single person would negate it. It seems the sane logical choice would be majority rules, not "one vote negates the other dozen" or however many people are on a jury.
Originally posted by Surtur
The problem is the only reason it costs more is due to appeals and all that crap. This person admitted it, they flat out admitted it. They should get no appeals. This "person" didn't give the person they killed any second chances, so they do not deserve one.So she will indeed be a drain. Not only because she'll spend life in prison getting her meals, medical needs, etc. taken care of, but because even if they gave her the death penalty it would be a drain because they'd let this murderer make all kinds of appeals. So we've created a system where no matter what we do..murderers will still a huge drain on society. Especially if putting her on death row would be MORE expensive then keeping her in prison well into her 70s or 80s? We can't even escape this drain, then. The system is broken when we let even admitted murderers be a burden on society in one way or another.
I also can't help but wonder if the fact this was a female played any part in the one juror not wanting to give her the death penalty. It has been made painfully clear that double standards in this country exist and not just against women, especially when it comes to justice.
Also maybe I am just misunderstanding this..it sounds like all but ONE juror was for the death penalty. But this makes no sense, if everyone but a single person was for it...I don't see why the vote of a single person would negate it. It seems the sane logical choice would be majority rules, not "one vote negates the other dozen" or however many people are on a jury.
She didn't 'admit' it in the sense you mean- she had a legal defence running of justifiable homicide. Furthermore there is an additional legal bar to be found on for the death penalty, even if someone pleaded out and out guilty. In both cases, there is absolutely nothing about this case that takes away any right to a proper legal and appeal process with something as serious as the death penalty, and it would be an enormous failure of morality to go in that direction.
What you seem to want is some sort of system where you just 'string 'em up' as soon as you can. The US had that system in the 19th century and it was fundamentally unjust, that system being an immorality in of itself as opposed to a remedy for it, with an obscene rate of innocent or undeserving (assuming you think anyone is deserving of the death penalty, which is contentious in of itself) people being hanged on the spot. Rules and safeguards were put in place for very good reason.