I dunno, John. I see it as a breakdown in the family. Ever since divorce/single mother rates skyrocketted, crime has, too. Good kids in good families usually don't go out and kill anyone.
Should the Brown's Chicken Killers get death?
- Thread starter sandy
- Start date
I dunno, John. I see it as a breakdown in the family. Ever since divorce/single mother rates skyrocketted, crime has, too. Good kids in good families usually don't go out and kill anyone.
that is true. in the case of the op, this is just a very bad person. that is putting it mildly. i do support the death penalty, in the most extreme cases i have no problem with it.
It's actually two--a white trash loser and a Hispanic guy. The Hispanic guy got life because of one juror holdout. They should fry the white trash.
Why not outlaw divorce?
And, I'm sure you'd be just as hot to kill someone if one of your family members were wrongfully convicted and were heading for the chair?
It is outlawed. Check the bible.
:bugeye:
You seem to be having a problem with reading comprehension. I'm not defending the "maggot." I'm simply pointing out the far-reaching depths of your morally corrupt hypocrisy.
I'm not having any problem. You are the one who came into the conversation with your dumb@ss post. Who knew you were hypothetically speaking? You can knock off the personal attacks. I'm not biting anymore.
You are the one hurtling personal attacks ie. "your dumb@ass post."
You aren't "biting" because you haven't produced an argument that isn't contradictory to your Christian morals.
You want people killed. You are no better than them. Worse, in fact.
I think if a person kills someone then they inturn should be killed in the same manor in which they killed the person. What I mean by that is if a person kills someone by dragging them behind a vehicle then that person derserves the same. And I think it should be done in the public for all to see. To get the message out if you choose to do this then this is what you get.
Oh and PS I am not in anyway a christian or any other cultist member.
That sounds fine until you consider that the only method to determine innocence or guilt is not perfect. We place only a provisional trust in such determinations, they are wrong too often for complete trust. Also, the constitution prevents cruel and unusual punishment.
But why is it cruel and unusual for it to be give to a killer but not the victom and the Prison system is full of people that did not do what they are in there for.
I think we should abolish no fault divorce for people with children. No kids, no fault divorce is fine. But once kids are involved, there are other considerations.
You are supporting my argument that there is no perfect system for determining judgement. In most cases, the victim was a victim of cruel treatment, which is why there is an investigation in the first place!
This and that
Beyond Spidergoat's point about the imperfection of guilt as relates the general proposition—any individual case notwithstanding—the supreme law of the land in the United States of America has a specific prohibition against this sort of thing. It's called the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and reads, quite simply:
And, besides, every once in a while, that sort of eye for an eye just won't satisfy people. Some murders are, as murders go, as kind as a murder can be. In those cases, I can imagine that some of the eye for an eye advocates wouldn't be satisfied with so peaceful an end. So even if we threw out the Eighth, there would be some who just weren't satisfied.
A general note on American prisons and the Constitution
For some reason, we still call prisons the "correctional system", and some of us still remember the word "rehabilitation". And while the idea of rehabilitative or correctional prison seems something of a joke in these days of overcrowding to the point of warehousing inmates like livestock, the reality is that no matter how vengeful some of you might feel toward those who break laws of any severity, this is the United States of America, and we're simply not running the legendary "Turkish" prisons. See the Eighth Amendment, quoted in the prior section of this post.
____________________
Notes:
United States Constitution. 1787. Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School. October 1, 2009. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
Grim Reaper said:
Beyond Spidergoat's point about the imperfection of guilt as relates the general proposition—any individual case notwithstanding—the supreme law of the land in the United States of America has a specific prohibition against this sort of thing. It's called the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and reads, quite simply:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
(Legal Information Institute)
(Legal Information Institute)
And, besides, every once in a while, that sort of eye for an eye just won't satisfy people. Some murders are, as murders go, as kind as a murder can be. In those cases, I can imagine that some of the eye for an eye advocates wouldn't be satisfied with so peaceful an end. So even if we threw out the Eighth, there would be some who just weren't satisfied.
• • •
"Joey, have you ever been in a ... in a Turkish prison?"
"Joey, have you ever been in a ... in a Turkish prison?"
A general note on American prisons and the Constitution
For some reason, we still call prisons the "correctional system", and some of us still remember the word "rehabilitation". And while the idea of rehabilitative or correctional prison seems something of a joke in these days of overcrowding to the point of warehousing inmates like livestock, the reality is that no matter how vengeful some of you might feel toward those who break laws of any severity, this is the United States of America, and we're simply not running the legendary "Turkish" prisons. See the Eighth Amendment, quoted in the prior section of this post.
____________________
Notes:
United States Constitution. 1787. Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School. October 1, 2009. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html