Another Bad-News Day, For "conservatives"

[Andy]

They should do the time: Life in prison. That's a worse punishment anyway.
But yes, they languish on death row for decades due mostly to the appeals process.

So what do you say about Clarence Ray who killed three more people after receiving life in prison? More importantly, do the 3 dead innocent victims think life in prison is worse than capital punishment?

The Innocence Project has exonerated over 200 people so far. It happens a lot more often than any of us would like to think. As for illegals, that's a whole other issue. If the government were doing its job, we would have very few illegals in prison or anywhere else. That's the same government that wants to carry out the death penalty, BTW.

Which to me, simply indicates it need to do a better job at both dealing with illegals and carrying out capital punishment.

As I said before, those people have tried to exonerate people that were guilty as hell. I don't trust them, and they've been wrong far too often.

Unlike them, I don't believe that I'd rather have 10 murderers released on the public, than 1 innocent man punished. That by the way, is a statement one of their leading members said.

Yes, if we could be certain, and carry out the death penalty quickly, then it might have some merit. The problem is, we are often not certain, are sometimes wrong, and never carry out the death penalty quickly.

Timothy McVeigh? He was executed pretty quickly. Again, under the new rules, there will not be 30 year waits for proper punishment. As for not being certain, as far as I'm concerned, if people sign confessions to murder, or have credible eye witnesses to murder, that's good enough for me.

In the case of rape especially, DNA evidence is iron clad and irrefutable. It is not easy to spring someone from prison after they've been convicted, but it has happened many times.

You missed the part about how the guy in question never was accused of raping her. Yet that DNA evidence was used to try and spring him from jail.

Of course, the vast majority of prisoners are there for crimes that they did commit, and most likely committed a lot more that they weren't convicted for. A vast majority is far from certainty, however.

Like I said before, I don't buy the idea that we should not administer punish on the chance a person is innocent. If we do that, then we can't punish anyone for anything.

An innocent person can be released from prison. A dead person, however, will remain dead whether or not he/she was innocent.

And how many thousands are murdered every year, because we only put a murderer in prison, instead of in the ground where they belong?

Of course, enforcing the law is important. Unfortunately, the government in which you seem to have so much faith does not enforce that law very fairly much of the time.

No, it's the difference between the unconstrained, and the constrained vision again. The unconstrained vision, seeks a solution. Seeks perfection. In that view, is a situation is not perfect, then you must find a better solution. So since justice isn't perfect, we can't have any harsh punishments, on the off chance it won't be done fairly, or perfectly.

The constrained view, realizes that man will never be perfect. Nor will any system of justice, that man is apart of, be perfect either. Thus the best possible compromise must be found. Since no form of justice will be "fair" or "perfectly enforced", then to base our choices on that means that no justice should be practiced at all. Instead, the best possible compromise is to enforce the law to it's fullest, and work toward reducing false convictions as much as possible. But not reduce penalties in the process.

The more I investigate people who have been put to death in the US, the more I am convinced they must be so. One of the killers that was executed in Texas, was widely known for his ability to escape from prison. If he had been allowed to live, undoubtedly he would have escaped again, and committed more murders.

Perhaps you should read up on some of the death row inmates, and see what kind of people you want kept alive. Donald Beardslee choked, stabbed, and then drowned Laura Griffin, in 1969. He was sentenced to life in prison, but then paroled. After that, he attacked and killed two girls, 19 and 23, in 1981.

You say we shouldn't trust government to enforce the death penalty. Yet do you trust government to enforce life without parole? What happens when there are not enough prisons, or when the money isn't there? If Donald had been put to death in 1969 for Laura Griffin, Patty Geddling 19, and Stacie Benjamin 23, would still be alive.

How many innocent people must die, before considering the death penalty?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Pro life means that we respect the human life so much, that one who does not respect human life, should be put to death.

Killing, in-defense of Life.

That could only make sense to those who (still) believe in talking-snakes.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Please share....what is being done? I would love to know, and perhaps take off the "blinders".

How 'bout switching-places?

When it's been found that a Prosecutor lied or withheld information, to secure our next blood-sacrifice (to Justice).....the convicted walks....and, the Prosecutor does 10 years; no appeals!!​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

As far as "allowing convicts to languish on death row for decades." Many times that can be due to the appeals process. I can understand what your saying about convicting innocent people, but I don't think that happens as much as you think.

If YOU happened to be one o' the 130, would THAT change your attitude about it not happening that often???​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Third, the theory that the cost for the death penalty(DP) vs life without parole (LWP), is dubious at best, and fraudulent at worst.

Yeah....the last thing we need is for the FACTS getting-in-our-way.

Hell, before you know it....we wouldn't (even) be able to attack countries that've never attacked US, if we let things get outta-control, like that.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

As I said before, those people have tried to exonerate people that were guilty as hell. I don't trust them, and they've been wrong far too often.

Whoops!!!!!

You forgot to list all o' the times they were wrong.

Whatta shocker.


​

 

[Ronaldus Magnus]

How 'bout switching-places?

When it's been found that a Prosecutor lied or withheld information, to secure our next blood-sacrifice (to Justice).....the convicted walks....and, the Prosecutor does 10 years; no appeals!!​

Wow, Blood sacrifice! That sounds so dramatic, and extreme. 130.....Do you know how many people are on death row in the U.S......or in the prison system. A prosecutor a singular prosecutor, and I'm sure there have been others, but that still doesn't change the fact that it works. Your stats were skewed, and now your trying to change the direction of the conversation.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Wow, Blood sacrifice! That sounds so dramatic, and extreme.

I think they're still called Judeo-Christian Values.​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Your stats were skewed, and now your trying to change the direction of the conversation.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm......let's seeeeee......​

Please share....what is being done? I would love to know, and perhaps take off the "blinders".

Answering you questions is changing the direction of the conversation, huh?

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

How unfortunate, for Republicans, when real Conservatives act!​

"Just as news breaks that political fundraising is down for both parties, Republicans have lost one of their more generous contributors.

In what one might call a biblical move, Christian philanthropist Howard Ahmanson -- one of three major funders of the campaign for California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriages -- has abandoned the GOP for the Democratic Party.

In a rare interview Thursday, Ahmanson shared some of his thoughts about why he switched parties. In a word, taxes.

Specifically, he was offended by the California Republican Party's insistence during a recent state budget battle that there would be no tax increases for any reason, no matter what."

 

[Ronaldus Magnus]

How unfortunate, for Republicans, when real Conservatives act!​

He clearly states that he has seperated himself from conservatives. He seems a little out there, but that means he should fit in nicely at the DNC. However, Many conservatives like myself have separated themselves from moderate republicans. Which is basically what the California republican party is made up of....a bunch of John McCain republicans.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

However, Many conservatives like myself have separated themselves from moderate republicans.

Yeah, I've heard folks (like you), from-time-to-time, on Porky Limbaugh's Comedy Show.​

 

[PLC1]

So what do you say about Clarence Ray who killed three more people after receiving life in prison? More importantly, do the 3 dead innocent victims think life in prison is worse than capital punishment?

I say that he should never have had access to communication with the outside world that allowed him to have organized the killings of three people. The government isn't doing a very good job of keeping prisoners from mandating crimes while in prison. It isn't doing a very good job of a lot of things.

Which to me, simply indicates it need to do a better job at both dealing with illegals and carrying out capital punishment.

Yes, it indicates that the government isn't doing a very good job at either. That's why it shouldn't be trusted with carrying out the death penalty.

As I said before, those people have tried to exonerate people that were guilty as hell. I don't trust them, and they've been wrong far too often.

Unlike them, I don't believe that I'd rather have 10 murderers released on the public, than 1 innocent man punished. That by the way, is a statement one of their leading members said.

Yes, I'm aware of their philosophy. Still, they are going to have a very hard time springing a guilty person from prison, let alone ten. They have a hard enough time releasing an innocent prisoner.

Timothy McVeigh? He was executed pretty quickly. Again, under the new rules, there will not be 30 year waits for proper punishment. As for not being certain, as far as I'm concerned, if people sign confessions to murder, or have credible eye witnesses to murder, that's good enough for me.

Why is it that McVeigh was an exception? Maybe it was the scale of the crime, or perhaps the lack of any doubt. Either way, one has to wonder what wacko groups now have a martyr in McVeigh.

You missed the part about how the guy in question never was accused of raping her. Yet that DNA evidence was used to try and spring him from jail.

There wasn't just one guy in question, but over 200.

Like I said before, I don't buy the idea that we should not administer punish on the chance a person is innocent. If we do that, then we can't punish anyone for anything.

Neither do I. Punishment should be meted out after the accused is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The only question is to what that punishment should be.[/QUOTE]

And how many thousands are murdered every year, because we only put a murderer in prison, instead of in the ground where they belong?

I have no idea. How many get out after having been sentenced to life without parole? Or, were they given parole for a lesser crime?

No, it's the difference between the unconstrained, and the constrained vision again. The unconstrained vision, seeks a solution. Seeks perfection. In that view, is a situation is not perfect, then you must find a better solution. So since justice isn't perfect, we can't have any harsh punishments, on the off chance it won't be done fairly, or perfectly.

Life without parole is pretty harsh, don't you think? It seems to me it is actually harsher than a pain free death.

The constrained view, realizes that man will never be perfect. Nor will any system of justice, that man is apart of, be perfect either. Thus the best possible compromise must be found. Since no form of justice will be "fair" or "perfectly enforced", then to base our choices on that means that no justice should be practiced at all. Instead, the best possible compromise is to enforce the law to it's fullest, and work toward reducing false convictions as much as possible. But not reduce penalties in the process.

You're right there. Man will never be perfect, and so neither will man's justice. The best possible compromise, in the case of first degree murder, is life without parole.

The more I investigate people who have been put to death in the US, the more I am convinced they must be so. One of the killers that was executed in Texas, was widely known for his ability to escape from prison. If he had been allowed to live, undoubtedly he would have escaped again, and committed more murders.

Escape from a maximum security prison? How about a supermax? Not too likely.

Perhaps you should read up on some of the death row inmates, and see what kind of people you want kept alive. Donald Beardslee choked, stabbed, and then drowned Laura Griffin, in 1969. He was sentenced to life in prison, but then paroled. After that, he attacked and killed two girls, 19 and 23, in 1981.

You say we shouldn't trust government to enforce the death penalty. Yet do you trust government to enforce life without parole? What happens when there are not enough prisons, or when the money isn't there? If Donald had been put to death in 1969 for Laura Griffin, Patty Geddling 19, and Stacie Benjamin 23, would still be alive.

How many innocent people must die, before considering the death penalty?

Oh, yes, they are awful people, for the most part. That's why they should never be allowed to be free, just for the protection of the rest of us. I think if the jury says life without parole, then there won't be a parole hearing, and the criminal won't be paroled. No, I don't trust the government to decide. That's why the jury has to decide.



Murderers should never be let out, unless, of course, new evidence proves them innocent.

 

[Andy]

I say that he should never have had access to communication with the outside world that allowed him to have organized the killings of three people. The government isn't doing a very good job of keeping prisoners from mandating crimes while in prison. It isn't doing a very good job of a lot of things.

Right, so why do you trust that a convicted murderer, will not be paroled by the government? Here's my view. I don't have to worry and executed murderer will 'accidentally' released. More over, it is nearly impossible to prevent someone from getting a message out of prison. In this case, he arranged for it to happen, with another inmate that was paroled. How would you prevent that?

But dead murders tend to not talk very much. It's awfully hard to arrange someones murder when you are 6 feet below ground level.

Yes, it indicates that the government isn't doing a very good job at either. That's why it shouldn't be trusted with carrying out the death penalty.

Why? You think they could screw up lethal injection? How? How many instances have executed criminals come back from the dead to murder again? How many dead murderers have been accidentally released on the public? Quite a few live ones, but not that many dead ones. Not sure I'd be too worried if a dead murderer got paroled anyway.

Yes, I'm aware of their philosophy. Still, they are going to have a very hard time springing a guilty person from prison, let alone ten. They have a hard enough time releasing an innocent prisoner.

Yeah, but they have tried. If they are willing to try to release someone that is obviously guilty, that calls into question those that have been released, now doesn't it?

Why is it that McVeigh was an exception? Maybe it was the scale of the crime, or perhaps the lack of any doubt. Either way, one has to wonder what wacko groups now have a martyr in McVeigh.

I doubt any group sees McVeigh as a martyr. The very group that McVeigh was apart of, refused to help him in his plot. Only that one guy whose name I can't remember helped, and only after McVeigh threatened to kill him in the end.

Like I said before, McVeigh was under the new laws that do not allow unlimited appeals. There's a couple of other reasons his execution was pretty quick, but that's for another thread.

There wasn't just one guy in question, but over 200.

In the rape, assault, attempted murder of the lady in Central Park? It was about 10. But the one guy who the Innocence Project was trying to release, never raped her to begin with. They were trying to free a clearly, self-confessed murderer.

I have no idea. How many get out after having been sentenced to life without parole? Or, were they given parole for a lesser crime?

You know how government works. When money get's tight, and prisons are maxed out, you have to find a compromise. Sometimes that's reduced sentences. You assume that if a person get's life without parole, there's no way they can get released? Not so. It's happened.

More over, many murders don't get life without parole to begin with. This site, is a law firm, that specializes in springing people from prison.
http://www.bennettbair.com/PostConviction.htm
Do a search for "life" and check out how many sentences they got reduced.

Life without parole is pretty harsh, don't you think? It seems to me it is actually harsher than a pain free death.

Tell that to the thousands murdered by people who were convicted of murder already. I don't care about the pain, as I do about saving the innocent from them.

You're right there. Man will never be perfect, and so neither will man's justice. The best possible compromise, in the case of first degree murder, is life without parole.

If the compromise leaves people like Danny R. Rouse, Willey Horton, and Clarence Ray, the ability to murder more people, then it's not the best possible in my book.

Escape from a maximum security prison? How about a supermax? Not too likely.

Sure. Why does it keep happening then? Google "escapee murder" and you'll find enough stories to make you want to puke. Each one an example of how effect 'life without parole' is at solving the problem. Under my system, very few would happen. Again, dead people don't murder innocent people.

Oh, yes, they are awful people, for the most part. That's why they should never be allowed to be free, just for the protection of the rest of us. I think if the jury says life without parole, then there won't be a parole hearing, and the criminal won't be paroled. No, I don't trust the government to decide. That's why the jury has to decide.

The jury decides the death penalty too. You have to truth them with prison time. Why can't you trust them with this?

Problem is, even if the jury says 'life without parole', if the government doesn't have the money for all these 'lifers', sentences tend to get reduced. With the death penalty, that isn't a problem.

Murderers should never be let out, unless, of course, new evidence proves them innocent.

There is only one way to make sure a murderer is never let out. It certainly isn't to hope the government does right. Plywood box six feet under, makes a great jail.

 

[Andy]

Yeah, I've heard folks (like you), from-time-to-time, on Porky Limbaugh's Comedy Show.​

Well it's true Limbaugh is funny when he's bashing leftists like you. Not to mention more accurate than you.