Does He? Where?
Erm… I thought the whole point of God is that he metes out his own, and fear of that is supposed to keep us in line.
Jesus-fuck, dude. Binary-thinking, much?
Yes, it sucks to be wrongly convicted and serve time. But having some amount of life after the mistake is found is good. If you’re killed, you can’t have some amount of life after the mistake is found.
God is an assertion you are making without evidence. It is of no value when discussing the real world.
Sure you do. All it takes is one liberal Supreme Court, and bingo - life without parole is “cruel and unusual” punishment.
There are no guarantees whatever that convicted murderers will not escape, be paroled or kill another prisoner.
Why is it that you people are so hepped up about relatively minor incidences of innocent people being killed while at the same time being so utterly unconcerned about the larger number of innocent people who’ve been killed by murderers who are still alive? Sorta gives the impression that innocent lives lost isn’t really the issue and are just a smokescreen for what you really want, which is to feel morally superior to the unwashed masses clamoring for the death penalty.
Nonsense.
I AM morally superior to the unwashed masses clamoring for the death penalty. I need no reassurance on that point.
I’m also morally (and intellectually) superior to people who say things as ridiculous as
Kinda makes me think that all that concern for murder victims is just a smokescreen for your bloodlust.
Oh My God! Suppose a liberal Supreme Court decides that ANY prison time is “cruel and unusual punishment”? Then nobody gets punished for anything? Won’t someone think of the children?
I presume you have evidence that four current justices subscribe to the opinion that mandatory life sentences are cruel and unusual.
As long as you have the possibility of the DP for federal crimes, then no, it’s not unfair.
Me, I think any state that sanctions killing as punishment for crimes is one that should be a world pariah. Not going to happen, but it’s what I think.
Doesn’t have to be current judges. Any liberal Supreme Court poses the risk of life without parole being deemed unconstitutional. This means that a multiple murderer 20 years of age today might well be on the street by middle age.
Liberals just can’t be trusted to keep people in jail. Look at what happens in countries where liberalism is given its head, such as in Norway. Kill 91 people and you get the fucking max…which is, uh, 21 years.
And they’re PROUD of this! They actually worry that 91 people being murdered might create enough sentiment for stiffer penalties that they might actually happen! Oh, the horror!
You’re, a whackadoodle dandy, whackadoodle do or die.
Compare the murder rates in liberal countries vs the US. What do you suppose that could be attributed to?
Seriously? Because We, the People (as embodied by the government we elect) are not supposed to be morally equivalent to those murderers. I mourn for the victims of killers, but there’s nothing I can do about that because I’m not responsible for it. If the State of New York kills an innocent man via the death penalty, his blood is on my hands. And it disgusts me.
I cannot fucking believe you handwave our collective responsibility for the deaths of innocents as “relatively minor incidences.” Jesus. If the State is responsible for one innocent person’s death, it’s too damned high a price to pay. A civilized, moral human should be repulsed by such acts taken allegedly in his or her name.
God is, presumably, capable of taking care of his own justice. To declare that somehow the guy needs a helping hand from us seems to suggest either an utter lack of faith or the height of arrogance.
When you have a perfect justice system avaliable, to say “Eh, I can’t be bothered to wait. Let’s just get it over with now, with our necessarily flawed system!” is, i’d argue, an inherently evil idea.
Wouldn’t this be a plus for your position?
An innocent death is an innocent death. It wouldn’t matter one whit to the wife or child of a paroled or escaped murderer’s victim whether you considered his death to be on your hands or not.
Fewer innocent deaths = good
More innocent deaths = bad
To be honest, when it comes to innocent people dying and which method results in the fewest number of them, I couldn’t care less about what moral responsibility you choose to burden yourself with. It’s absolutely ludicrous that you would defend a method which you know will result in more murdered husbands, wives and children as being more “moral” and “civilized” than the one which results in the fewest. You can keep your morals and your civilization - me, I’m going with more happily alive people.
Cite that the death penalty has a measurable effect on the number of murders?
I’ll wait.
First point may be on the way to being a non-issue (of course appeals are sure to ensue).
First Federal Death Sentence in Non-Death Penalty State Overturned
Not true. In fact, for large parts of history you got away with murder quite easily, if you were prepared to pay for it. It all depended on who you killed and in what circumstances. Kill a man in a fit of passion, pay some weregild, and that’s that. Or kill a slave and pay his master… lots of that sort of thing in various cultures. Most every culture had capital punishment, it’s true, but they always had other options too. Hell, modern European countries weren’t the first to abolish it totally, either - the Tang dynasty did that in China in the 700s (for, like, 12 years only, but still)
No, because short timers can be victims of murderers too.
Ooh, interesting, thanks. Be interested in how any appeals shake out.
Not quite. The “fucking max” is, as you say, 21 years. There is a very good chance that the perp in this instance will be adjudged criminally insane. So long as he is not deemed to be “cured”, he is a threat to society and will remain in custody, regardless of any legal limitation on sentencing.
It would have taken you two minutes to find this out. You didn’t bother.