Political Crossfire Forums

[Thrilla]

Nelson wrote: Even still, I agree with the Error-Proof Death Penalty legislation proposed by Romney. Certain crimes merit the death penalty, specifically those that involve incredible brutal crimes or a 'prolific' perpetrator of crimes. i haven't seen his proposal..but i agree.. the closer we can get to being error-proof.. the better off we are

[Heinz]

Nelson wrote: Even still, I agree with the Error-Proof Death Penalty legislation proposed by Romney. Certain crimes merit the death penalty, specifically those that involve incredible brutal crimes or a 'prolific' perpetrator of crimes.

Killing someone is killing someone no matter if you do it Jeffrey Dahmer style or do it like a nub who's killing for the first time. The victim comes out the same way...dead. Trying to give some type of brutality level to an already brutal act is ridiculous. Murder is murder.

[gavnook]

The Russian wrote: I know a way to solve all of our problems.

All people deserving life imprisonment should not have all the privelages of entertainment we do, no tv or radio, and as little human contact as possible.

In each cell, there should be a built in little box, with a red pill, that pill would render you unconcious, then kill you, brain first... similar to the cocktail we got going now. An inmate could choose to off themselves at any point in their life... make it all optional I say.

To me, life in prison would be worse than death... if I'd killed some important guy and actualy got caught and sentenced to life in prison, I'd take the red pill. (I know, get off with life-impris after offing some important guy is a fat chance, but you understand what i'm saying.)

You should probably edit you post to look the way my version does.

The SS doesn't share your sense of humor.

[Nelson]

Heinz wrote: Nelson wrote: Even still, I agree with the Error-Proof Death Penalty legislation proposed by Romney. Certain crimes merit the death penalty, specifically those that involve incredible brutal crimes or a 'prolific' perpetrator of crimes.

Killing someone is killing someone no matter if you do it Jeffrey Dahmer style or do it like a nub who's killing for the first time. The victim comes out the same way...dead. Trying to give some type of brutality level to an already brutal act is ridiculous. Murder is murder.

I disagree. A ninety-year old woman who sees her ninety-five year old, sick husband is in terrible pain and slips something into his drink to let him painlessly die is not the same thing as a man who goes on a rape and murder spree across the nation.

The circumstances matter immensely - and that is why we have juries deciding if a crime is heinous enough to merit the death penalty.

[ieatfood]

i don't understand why they don't use general anesthesia instead of an IV
I guess they can't find an anesthesiologist who's willing to throw away his career to do it.

[sLiPpY]

What if the death penalty were eliminated, and those being punished...simply had to live together without protection from prison guards.

They could individually have as many weapons as they'd like, excepting a fire arm. :-D

That way those felchers could eliminate themselves, while society passively kept it's hands clean.

[Heinz]

Quote: I disagree. A ninety-year old woman who sees her ninety-five year old, sick husband is in terrible pain and slips something into his drink to let him painlessly die is not the same thing as a man who goes on a rape and murder spree across the nation.

If she slips it into his drink with his permission then whatever. If she did it without him knowing, regardless of her intentions, she still killed someone. Why should a man who kills a girl against her will be treated differently in the eyes of the court then this women who also acted intentionally? Justice is blind...Murder is murder.

Quote: The circumstances matter immensely - and that is why we have juries deciding if a crime is heinous enough to merit the death penalty.

Only one circumstance matters and that's that you killed someone against their will and did so on purpose. The only type of murder that I would consider less then brutal would be manslaughter, since it is unintentional.

[Nelson]

Heinz wrote: Quote: I disagree. A ninety-year old woman who sees her ninety-five year old, sick husband is in terrible pain and slips something into his drink to let him painlessly die is not the same thing as a man who goes on a rape and murder spree across the nation.

If she slips it into his drink with his permission then whatever. If she did it without him knowing, regardless of her intentions, she still killed someone. Why should a man who kills a girl against her will be treated differently in thr eyes of the court then this women? Justice is blind...Murder is murder.

Quote: The circumstances matter immensely - and that is why we have juries deciding if a crime is heinous enough to merit the death penalty.

Only one circumstance matters and that's that you killed someone against their will.

Agree to disagree? If she slips it into his drink without his permission, her crime (atleast in my eyes and doubtless in the eyes of a jury of her peers) would her crime merit the death penalty. Matters are more complicated than murder just being murder. If she slipped it into his drink by accident, would it also be murder is murder?

[Heinz]

Quote: Agree to disagree? If she slips it into his drink without his permission, her crime (atleast in my eyes and doubtless in the eyes of a jury of her peers) would her crime merit the death penalty.

I think it would merit a death penalty for 2 reasons:

1) She acted in an intentional manner to end the life of another person

and

2) She has the burden of proving to the court that her intent was to kill him so he wouldn't feel pain. The number one killer of married men is arsenic, and for good reason.

Quote: Matters are more complicated than murder just being murder. If she slipped it into his drink by accident, would it also be murder is murder?

No...she did it unintentionally. She had no intent on killing her husband, but made a mistake and accidentally killed him. Manslaughter is different then intentionally killing someone.

[Mr. Sunshine]

Lethal injection as currently applied is an easy way to go. I think they should just give the b@stards the paralytic only so they can die in panic and of slow suffocation feeling the life leave their body while not being able to move. That will eventually stop the heart. :lol:

[sLiPpY]

Nelson wrote: Heinz wrote: Quote: I disagree. A ninety-year old woman who sees her ninety-five year old, sick husband is in terrible pain and slips something into his drink to let him painlessly die is not the same thing as a man who goes on a rape and murder spree across the nation.

If she slips it into his drink with his permission then whatever. If she did it without him knowing, regardless of her intentions, she still killed someone. Why should a man who kills a girl against her will be treated differently in thr eyes of the court then this women? Justice is blind...Murder is murder.

Quote: The circumstances matter immensely - and that is why we have juries deciding if a crime is heinous enough to merit the death penalty.

Only one circumstance matters and that's that you killed someone against their will.

Agree to disagree? If she slips it into his drink without his permission, her crime (atleast in my eyes and doubtless in the eyes of a jury of her peers) would her crime merit the death penalty. Matters are more complicated than murder just being murder. If she slipped it into his drink by accident, would it also be murder is murder?

Slip something into a drink?

Why not choose to die like a real man? Ernest Hemmingway chose to use his favorite shot gun, about four or five months after the "cleaner" attempt failed.

[Nelson]

Heinz wrote: Quote: Agree to disagree? If she slips it into his drink without his permission, her crime (atleast in my eyes and doubtless in the eyes of a jury of her peers) would her crime merit the death penalty.

I think it would merit a death penalty for 2 reasons:

1) She acted in an intentional manner to end the life of another person

and

2) She has the burden of proving to the court that her intent was to kill him so he wouldn't feel pain. The number one killer of married men is arsenic, and for good reason.

Quote: Matters are more complicated than murder just being murder. If she slipped it into his drink by accident, would it also be murder is murder?

No...she did it unintentionally. She had no intent on killing her husband, but made a mistake and accidentally killed him. Manslaughter is different then intentionally killing someone.

Why would it matter in your eyes if she intended on killing her husband so he wouldn't feel pain? She still has intentionally killed her husband - doesn't that equally merit the death penalty?

[Nelson]

sLiPpY wrote: Nelson wrote: Heinz wrote: Quote: I disagree. A ninety-year old woman who sees her ninety-five year old, sick husband is in terrible pain and slips something into his drink to let him painlessly die is not the same thing as a man who goes on a rape and murder spree across the nation.

If she slips it into his drink with his permission then whatever. If she did it without him knowing, regardless of her intentions, she still killed someone. Why should a man who kills a girl against her will be treated differently in thr eyes of the court then this women? Justice is blind...Murder is murder.

Quote: The circumstances matter immensely - and that is why we have juries deciding if a crime is heinous enough to merit the death penalty.

Only one circumstance matters and that's that you killed someone against their will.

Agree to disagree? If she slips it into his drink without his permission, her crime (atleast in my eyes and doubtless in the eyes of a jury of her peers) would her crime merit the death penalty. Matters are more complicated than murder just being murder. If she slipped it into his drink by accident, would it also be murder is murder?

Slip something into a drink?

Why not choose to die like a real man? Ernest Hemmingway chose to use his favorite shot gun, about four or five months after the "cleaner" attempt failed.

Are you kidding? The real manly way to die is to repeatedly slam your head against a sidewalk.
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=manly_suicide

[Heinz]

Quote: Why would it matter in your eyes if she intended on killing her husband so he wouldn't feel pain?

Because her intent the whole way through was to kill him intentionally without him knowing. She knew what she was doing and planned it until she murdered him, on purpose.

Quote: She still has intentionally killed her husband - doesn't that equally merit the death penalty?

Manslaughter is not killing someone intentionally. It is the unintentional death of someone that happened because you made a bad mistake. I don't see it as equivelant for that very reason.....You didn't want to kill someone, but you did.

[Nelson]

Heinz wrote: Quote: Why would it matter in your eyes if she intended on killing her husband so he wouldn't feel pain?

Because her intent the whole way through was to kill him intentionally without him knowing. She knew what she was doing.

Quote: She still has intentionally killed her husband - doesn't that equally merit the death penalty?

Manslaughter is not killing someone intentionally. It is the unintentional death of someone that happened because you made a bad mistake. I don't see it as equivelant for that very reason.....You didn't want to kill someone, but you did.

I'm confused on the first response - the two scenarios:

The 90 year old woman puts a poison into the drink of her husband that is known to cause an especially painful death, and she chose it for that reason, or:

The 90 year old woman picks a poison and puts it into her husband's drink that is known to cause an especially painless death, and she chose it for that reason:

Do you think the situations are different and one would merit harsher punishment than the other?

[sLiPpY]

Nelson wrote: sLiPpY wrote: Nelson wrote: Heinz wrote: Quote: I disagree. A ninety-year old woman who sees her ninety-five year old, sick husband is in terrible pain and slips something into his drink to let him painlessly die is not the same thing as a man who goes on a rape and murder spree across the nation.

If she slips it into his drink with his permission then whatever. If she did it without him knowing, regardless of her intentions, she still killed someone. Why should a man who kills a girl against her will be treated differently in thr eyes of the court then this women? Justice is blind...Murder is murder.

Quote: The circumstances matter immensely - and that is why we have juries deciding if a crime is heinous enough to merit the death penalty.

Only one circumstance matters and that's that you killed someone against their will.

Agree to disagree? If she slips it into his drink without his permission, her crime (atleast in my eyes and doubtless in the eyes of a jury of her peers) would her crime merit the death penalty. Matters are more complicated than murder just being murder. If she slipped it into his drink by accident, would it also be murder is murder?

Slip something into a drink?

Why not choose to die like a real man? Ernest Hemmingway chose to use his favorite shot gun, about four or five months after the "cleaner" attempt failed.

Are you kidding? The real manly way to die is to repeatedly slam your head against a sidewalk.
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=manly_suicide

What about getting yourself stuck in a car door?

[Heinz]

Quote: The 90 year old woman puts a poison into the drink of her husband that is known to cause an especially painful death, and she chose it for that reason, or:

The 90 year old woman picks a poison and puts it into her husband's drink that is known to cause an especially painless death, and she chose it for that reason:

Both are the same.....she chose to kill her husband intentionally and against his will.

Quote: Do you think the situations are different and one would merit harsher punishment than the other?

Nope.

[Nelson]

Heinz wrote: Quote: The 90 year old woman puts a poison into the drink of her husband that is known to cause an especially painful death, and she chose it for that reason, or:

The 90 year old woman picks a poison and puts it into her husband's drink that is known to cause an especially painless death, and she chose it for that reason:

Both are the same.....she chose to kill her husband intentionally and against his will.

Quote: Do you think the situations are different and one would merit harsher punishment than the other?

Nope.

There isn't much more to debate in my eyes - besides me pointing out the obvious in that the U.S. justice system is run by common-sense ruling, and that the majority of Americans and justices believe that there is significant importance in the way in which a murder is performed and the intent of the perpetrator, as well as if they planned the murder or they performed it on the spot.

Agree to disagree!

[Nelson]

sLiPpY wrote: Nelson wrote: sLiPpY wrote: Nelson wrote: Heinz wrote: Quote: I disagree. A ninety-year old woman who sees her ninety-five year old, sick husband is in terrible pain and slips something into his drink to let him painlessly die is not the same thing as a man who goes on a rape and murder spree across the nation.

If she slips it into his drink with his permission then whatever. If she did it without him knowing, regardless of her intentions, she still killed someone. Why should a man who kills a girl against her will be treated differently in thr eyes of the court then this women? Justice is blind...Murder is murder.

Quote: The circumstances matter immensely - and that is why we have juries deciding if a crime is heinous enough to merit the death penalty.

Only one circumstance matters and that's that you killed someone against their will.

Agree to disagree? If she slips it into his drink without his permission, her crime (atleast in my eyes and doubtless in the eyes of a jury of her peers) would her crime merit the death penalty. Matters are more complicated than murder just being murder. If she slipped it into his drink by accident, would it also be murder is murder?

Slip something into a drink?

Why not choose to die like a real man? Ernest Hemmingway chose to use his favorite shot gun, about four or five months after the "cleaner" attempt failed.

Are you kidding? The real manly way to die is to repeatedly slam your head against a sidewalk.
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=manly_suicide

What about getting yourself stuck in a car door?



I think slamming your head into the sidewalk repeatedly takes more manliness, and I believe that eating a tub full of beans is a close second.

[Heinz]

Quote: Agree to disagree!

8:)