Burned Alive

You love to assume things that go along with your "counters". First I'm an envious poor person and when that backfired you now assume I'm a snobbish rich person who doesn't know what being poor is, unlike you who just so happened to be poor at one time.

It's not that I do not grasp what you say, its that you say things that are really ignorant and double down with an even more ignorant post.


Does it have to even be mentioned how much we have advanced in technology in the past 100yrs.. The thousands of years before you could literally do anything leave the area and get away with it. Not to mention you yourself say it has long been the usual punishment, so we have stopped this long usual punishment and it doesn't matter these crimes still happen. The only difference is instead of a 10cent bullet or a reusable rope, we now pay millions more likely billions to keep these murders and rapist alive and comfortable in prison for the rest of their lives "or until paroled". Since now all of the sudden you seem to care about poor people perhaps we could use that money for making things better for non-murderers and rapists. I know Its a silly thought.

What about the wrongfully convicted? Is that not in your personal lexicon?

Now, I agree that the appeals process takes way too freaking long. The main type of case affected by this delay is a death penalty case, where appeals are flied individually and not in a group, generally in last-ditch efforts to find something wrong with the original trial.

Incompetence of original counsel is almost always the first one, by the way.

The appeals process DOES however have a place in the American justice system, because humans are humans and as much as people don't like to admit it, sometimes a person doesn't get a fair trial on the first go-round (to use a phrase from the Backasshole of Oklahoma (tm)).

Improved technology only improves the scientific resources we have to convict or exonerate these defendants. It has little, if anything, to do with the punishment phase... except as it pertains to monitoring of prisoners, whether that monitoring is institutional or home-based.

It's been proven that electronic monitoring costs a fraction of an institutionally-based confinement, especially because some people are willing to pay anything to not have Big Bubba as their celmmate.

Now, house arrest or home confinement isn't appropriate for all offenses.

Hell, the punishments some people get aren't appropriate for the offense committed, and that tends to be based on how much one can pay for an effective defense. In Oklahoma recently, a woman was convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and received /TWENTY YEARS/ for this crime.

That must have been one HELL of a lot of pot.

Conversely, another woman was convicted of conspiring to commit first degree murder and received probation.

WTH, says I.

Rapists and murderers, as you call them, aren't the only ones locked up. As much as I personally deplore those crimes, death is not an appropriate punishment for all of them, thus your argument to use a ten cent bullet or a rope without considering the merits of the case is not only uninformed, but utterly HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE.

By your own shortsightedness, your own blanket statements, you seem to lump together a serial killer with a mother who, in a rage, shot her five year old daughter's attacker.

Nice job.

It's such a rage inducing thing to think about. I can't comprehend how someone would even be able do that to a newborn. The whole human conception of cute comes from our newborns its literally wired into our brain. I'm glad I didn't witness this in person I doubt I would have had any self control. Human beings are such disgusting and disturbing creatures.

Not gonna quote the entire ramblings of Seekerstar just the few bad points he seemed to be trying to make.

The problem here is the way you people think its either kill them all or kill none. Can a middle ground not be reached? If any possibility exists that someone could be innocent delay the dangling at the end of a rope until they are found guilty without reasonable doubt. Which brings me to that word "reasonable" a word that escapes people that say things like this.



That would be called self-defense.

I'm very convinced you cannot actually read. Or, more accurately, refuse to read. I never called you an "envious poor person." Indeed, poor people don't envy the imprisoned, but lazy people do. I think you're a lazy person (based on your complete lack of interest in reading or backing up your arguments with facts or do much of anything except type). I feel the need to be explicitly clear on this matter because you have trouble with basic English.

Anyone else have flashbacks to "Slaves can just run away"? Mobility didn't exist like you think it does. Even 100 years ago, most people rarely ventured more than 50 miles from where they were born. It's honestly not hugely different today, either: we can get around more, but most people are still in the state they were born in.

Criminology has been waiting for its prophesied champion to show up and light the way. It must be interesting to make bold claims without any basis in the scientific method.

Oh, wait, suggesting that you rely on verifiable facts is like asking an Orthodox Jew to each a bacon cheeseburger, right?

I love how you go and latch onto the two groups I pointed out commit crimes the least after they get caught and permitted back into society. It's perfect irony.

But you raise a good point, not that you realize it. Depending on what particular type of crime you mean, alleviating the suffering of the poor can reduce the crime rate. A significant amount of property crime, theft, and the violence that comes with black market operations (drugs, guns, slaves, prostitution, etc.) are motivated by systemic disadvantages that keep the generationally poor mired in their circumstances. One need only look at the difference between public school districts in a given county and compare their condition with the average household income of the district to see the correlation.

Your solution, though, is to just kill. Someone gets picked up for smoking weed? Shoot 'em, they'll never turn their life around. Someone pisses in the street while extremely drunk? Well, not only did they get a public drunkenness charge, they're also on the sex offender list -- you'd be doing him a favor by putting a bullet in his brain stem, since he'll probably be raping kids any time soon.



I did point out that the idea of rehabilitation, which necessarily requires forgiveness, is strongly rooted in a Christian ethos (and has literally never been practiced in this country). Aren't you a Christian? This is the thing that always gets me: the most vile, blood-thirsty, eye-for-an-eye people also claim to follow the teachings of a pacifist who literally forgave the sins of the convicted and condemned men hanging beside him.

I think its best to part ways before the mods ban me again and let you off the hook with not even a warning.

When you can have a conversation without basing it on assumptions and conjecture or calling me out for things I have never said please feel free to have someone PM me. Out of all the people on this site you are the first to enter my Blist folder. Consider it an accomplishment, hell I haven't even Blisted Vic.

Assuming makes an *** out of you and me- I'm not a he. Thank you for assuming, though.

Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is a legal term, and also subjective as hell because it involves human beings.

Also, you don't know me well enough to call me "you people", as you have no real idea what the hell you're talking about. <3

I'll enlighten you some, if you care enough to read instead of spouting off words in great numbers. I believe in fairness for everyone. That doesn't always happen. A fair trial, even for the vilest of killers that was caught with the weapon in his hand with his victim at his feet. (That would be a short trial, I'd think.) Why? Because that's the law as it was meant to be.

Explain to me just how shooting a poor *** instead of trying to see if they won't screw up after appropriate sanction is self-defense, I'd love to hear it.


Bolded for emphasis- I recently read of a case where a gentleman was convicted of indecent exposure 18 years ago. He was, of course, required to register for life as a sex offender. When a child went missing in the neighborhood the community found out he was registered, and damn near lynched him.

He had done nothing since that conviction, yet his past was dragged up again after /eighteen years/ of doing right. (His original crime? Wanking in his car when he was 19.... not exactly the SMARTEST thing in the universe, but he got caught by an older lady and the rest is history.) He was cleared of the child's disappearance (turns out her stepdad murdered her, among other things) but the damage was done. Lost his job, etc.

Also, people have been killing in the name of Jesus for centuries now. That's nothing new. The fact that he preached compassion and love for his fellow man seems to bypass some people.

Guess reasonable is too much to ask around here.

Only as it pertains to yourself- unless, of course, you consider your "shoot em all and let God sort em out" to be reasonable.

If you do, then I venture to call you mentally unbalanced.

Except for that's is not what I said. But you continue to debate me as if I did. You are Unreasonable..

Except neither of us is engaged in an insult war right now, so there's no reason to moderate us. This conversation has been civil, if only one-sided, inasmuch as you never even try to defend your point-of-view, much less explicate it nor counter mine.

But, yes, please, do keep up the martyr game. I'm sure you carry around your own cross for such purposes.

If anyone is wondering, I neither trust this consistent hack to actually blacklist me nor to maintain that status if he did.

No, I paraphrased you. Pretty sure most reasonable (Hey, it's that word again!) people would infer just that from your own statements in this thread.

Your opinion of me means little, though, because the more I read of what you say, then more I am convinced of your tendency to blow right past things that people say to you, things that should get a response as is proper in a debate forum....just so you can virtually stick out your tongue with your fingers in your ears yelling "Nyah nyah nyah, I'm right and you're wrong!!"

Also, a debate implies intelligent discourse between two or more individuals. This conversation doesn't apply. I'll leave it as an exercise to you as to why. <3