GnS Politics 2016: Death Penalty
Options
Comments
-
For Death Penalty (Courts/Jurors Decision)Judge_Judah wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »Judge_Judah wrote: »Judge_Judah wrote: »Judge_Judah wrote: »
Thou shalt not ? .
Ex 20:13
Strongs # 07523 for "? " in that verse.
RATSACH
I.to murder, slay, ?
A.(Qal) to murder, slay
i.premeditated
ii.accidental
iii.as avenger
iv.slayer (intentional) (participle)
B.(Niphal) to be slain
C.(Piel)
i.to murder, assassinate
ii.murderer, assassin (participle)(subst)
D.(Pual) to be killed
Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)
רָצַח râtsach, raw-tsakh'; a primitive root; properly, to dash in pieces, i.e. ? (a human being), especially to murder:—put to death, ? , (man-) slay(-er), murder(-er).
There is a difference in context you cannot just go by dictionary definitions outside of context. If people followed context they would be a lot less confused
That is the strongs number and definition used for that exact verse tho.....
So the definition given by strongs is in linev with what I said.
If you were quoting from exodus 20:13, yes sir.
From the wiki:
Unlike other Biblical reference books, the purpose of Strong's Concordance is not to provide content or commentary about the Bible, but to provide an index to the Bible.
Pretty much the only versions of the Bible that translate it as "Thou Shalt Not ? " is the KJV or variants of it. Go look in the NIV or NKJV or any other book that focuses on accuracy and you'll see it translated as "You shall not murder" or "You shall not commit murder." Again, it's silly to believe that ? commanded people not to ? considering how much he helped them do just that. Hell, in Deuteronomy ? specifically tells the Israelites to ? everyone they come across when they got to the promised land.
On topic, I don't see how anyone can say the Death Penalty is cruel. Being caged for the rest of your life, sometimes in solitary confinement is way more cruel. Every living thing dies. That's a natural part of life. Being trapped in a box for 23 hours a day is as unnatural as it gets for human beings.
And this is why....we should only use the KJV bible and strive to learn the Hebrew to be able to go back to the original.
Hebrew and English are very different. And that's why I keep my Strong's concordance on me to reference the original Hebrew words before they were translated.
This doesn't make sense. The KJV is notoriously inaccurate, so why of all the versions would you choose to stick with that one? And again, Strong's Concordance just allows you to trace words. It doesn't actually help you understand what was being said or the context in which it was being said. You'd be much better off reading something like the New International Version, which was created with the expressed purpose of being as close to the original Aramaic and Hebrew as possible. For the third time, ? gave people directives to ? and he gave people powers (i.e. Samson), which he expected them to use for nothing else but killing. It would make absolutely no sense to believe that he would do that, not want people to ? under any circumstances.? _i_look_like wrote: »Only reason Im kinda against the death penalty is because its the easy way out compared to life in prison.
i've never understood this logic.
breathing >>>> not breathing
the first little stint is gonna suck in prison, but eventually you get used to it and that becomes your life.. you adapt and then you enjoy little dumb ? like the dessert at meal time, instead of whatever you enjoyed on the outside, but you're still alive, and ABLE to "enjoy" things, and think, and everything.
I get it. I rather not exist than exist in captivity for the rest of my life. I'm sure you could adapt to life in jail. Africans adapted to live in slavery. Jews adapted to live in Concentration Camps. You being able to adapt to a ? life doesn't make that life any less ? . -
Pro-Life (Against death penalty)? _i_look_like wrote: »Only reason Im kinda against the death penalty is because its the easy way out compared to life in prison.
i've never understood this logic.
breathing >>>> not breathing
the first little stint is gonna suck in prison, but eventually you get used to it and that becomes your life.. you adapt and then you enjoy little dumb ? like the dessert at meal time, instead of whatever you enjoyed on the outside, but you're still alive, and ABLE to "enjoy" things, and think, and everything.
I tend to agree with this. I mean, how many "life without parole" prisoners are trying to get the death penalty? A lot less than vice versa. So I dont really buy into the idea that life is worse than the death penalty. But still, the idea for me is so horrific and primitive that I can't get with it. -
For Death Penalty (Courts/Jurors Decision)playmaker88 wrote: »Some people deserve horrible deaths.
They should die in the same manor they killed the victim
i.e. firing squads -
For Death Penalty (Courts/Jurors Decision)obnoxiouslyfresh wrote: »? _i_look_like wrote: »Only reason Im kinda against the death penalty is because its the easy way out compared to life in prison.
i've never understood this logic.
breathing >>>> not breathing
the first little stint is gonna suck in prison, but eventually you get used to it and that becomes your life.. you adapt and then you enjoy little dumb ? like the dessert at meal time, instead of whatever you enjoyed on the outside, but you're still alive, and ABLE to "enjoy" things, and think, and everything.
I tend to agree with this. I mean, how many "life without parole" prisoners are trying to get the death penalty? A lot less than vice versa. So I dont really buy into the idea that life is worse than the death penalty. But still, the idea for me is so horrific and primitive that I can't get with it.
This is a fair point, but I think that's more because living things are kinda predisposed to cling to life. Most people don't become suicidal under any circumstances. Just because somebody is not choosing to leap to their deaths doesn't mean that their life is better than being dead.
I don't believe I'd commit suicide if I got life in prison, but I'd probably still prefer death over spending the rest of my life behind bars. -
Pro-Life (Against death penalty)The Lonious Monk wrote: »Judge_Judah wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »Judge_Judah wrote: »Judge_Judah wrote: »Judge_Judah wrote: »
Thou shalt not ? .
Ex 20:13
Strongs # 07523 for "? " in that verse.
RATSACH
I.to murder, slay, ?
A.(Qal) to murder, slay
i.premeditated
ii.accidental
iii.as avenger
iv.slayer (intentional) (participle)
B.(Niphal) to be slain
C.(Piel)
i.to murder, assassinate
ii.murderer, assassin (participle)(subst)
D.(Pual) to be killed
Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)
רָצַח râtsach, raw-tsakh'; a primitive root; properly, to dash in pieces, i.e. ? (a human being), especially to murder:—put to death, ? , (man-) slay(-er), murder(-er).
There is a difference in context you cannot just go by dictionary definitions outside of context. If people followed context they would be a lot less confused
That is the strongs number and definition used for that exact verse tho.....
So the definition given by strongs is in linev with what I said.
If you were quoting from exodus 20:13, yes sir.
From the wiki:
Unlike other Biblical reference books, the purpose of Strong's Concordance is not to provide content or commentary about the Bible, but to provide an index to the Bible.
Pretty much the only versions of the Bible that translate it as "Thou Shalt Not ? " is the KJV or variants of it. Go look in the NIV or NKJV or any other book that focuses on accuracy and you'll see it translated as "You shall not murder" or "You shall not commit murder." Again, it's silly to believe that ? commanded people not to ? considering how much he helped them do just that. Hell, in Deuteronomy ? specifically tells the Israelites to ? everyone they come across when they got to the promised land.
On topic, I don't see how anyone can say the Death Penalty is cruel. Being caged for the rest of your life, sometimes in solitary confinement is way more cruel. Every living thing dies. That's a natural part of life. Being trapped in a box for 23 hours a day is as unnatural as it gets for human beings.
And this is why....we should only use the KJV bible and strive to learn the Hebrew to be able to go back to the original.
Hebrew and English are very different. And that's why I keep my Strong's concordance on me to reference the original Hebrew words before they were translated.
This doesn't make sense. The KJV is notoriously inaccurate, so why of all the versions would you choose to stick with that one? And again, Strong's Concordance just allows you to trace words. It doesn't actually help you understand what was being said or the context in which it was being said. You'd be much better off reading something like the New International Version, which was created with the expressed purpose of being as close to the original Aramaic and Hebrew as possible. For the third time, ? gave people directives to ? and he gave people powers (i.e. Samson), which he expected them to use for nothing else but killing. It would make absolutely no sense to believe that he would do that, not want people to ? under any circumstances.
.
I'm not tryna derail this any longer, but if you really want to know why after this post, hit the pm or make a thread....
But to understand why I say the KJV is the best is because it is the closest to the original scriptures in their native tongues. And because man is susceptible to error in translations, this is why I'm studying Hebrew and ALWAYS cross reference with the Strongs. And for you to say thisAnd again, Strong's Concordance just allows you to trace words. It doesn't actually help you understand what was being said or the context in which it was being said
Indicates to me tou dont understand how a Strong's Concordance works. For example, here are all the different Hebrew words used for the general English word "love"
http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=love
Now if you looked at that link, you will see all the different words in Hebrew that mean different types of "love" based on context. Bur in English, we would just translate each one of those DIFFERENT words as "love".
So knowing the Hebrew word originally used gives you better understanding of what is being said.
All these new translations are bastardized, paraphrased versions of the KJV....
http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/bacon-niv1.html -
every time something like this is discussed, y'all bring up slavery, revenge, and anger.
those things have no place in a civilized society.
especially a civilized justice system. -
I'm not too keen on the death sentence being left up to the discretion of one man either. There are too many biases and emotions that can skew objectivity and could tip the balance of someone's life. I've seen judges drop ridiculous sentences and bond amounts just because they're having a ? day.
-
For Death Penalty (Victims family's decision)Judge_Judah wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »Judge_Judah wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »Judge_Judah wrote: »Judge_Judah wrote: »Judge_Judah wrote: »
Thou shalt not ? .
Ex 20:13
Strongs # 07523 for "? " in that verse.
RATSACH
I.to murder, slay, ?
A.(Qal) to murder, slay
i.premeditated
ii.accidental
iii.as avenger
iv.slayer (intentional) (participle)
B.(Niphal) to be slain
C.(Piel)
i.to murder, assassinate
ii.murderer, assassin (participle)(subst)
D.(Pual) to be killed
Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)
רָצַח râtsach, raw-tsakh'; a primitive root; properly, to dash in pieces, i.e. ? (a human being), especially to murder:—put to death, ? , (man-) slay(-er), murder(-er).
There is a difference in context you cannot just go by dictionary definitions outside of context. If people followed context they would be a lot less confused
That is the strongs number and definition used for that exact verse tho.....
So the definition given by strongs is in linev with what I said.
If you were quoting from exodus 20:13, yes sir.
From the wiki:
Unlike other Biblical reference books, the purpose of Strong's Concordance is not to provide content or commentary about the Bible, but to provide an index to the Bible.
Pretty much the only versions of the Bible that translate it as "Thou Shalt Not ? " is the KJV or variants of it. Go look in the NIV or NKJV or any other book that focuses on accuracy and you'll see it translated as "You shall not murder" or "You shall not commit murder." Again, it's silly to believe that ? commanded people not to ? considering how much he helped them do just that. Hell, in Deuteronomy ? specifically tells the Israelites to ? everyone they come across when they got to the promised land.
On topic, I don't see how anyone can say the Death Penalty is cruel. Being caged for the rest of your life, sometimes in solitary confinement is way more cruel. Every living thing dies. That's a natural part of life. Being trapped in a box for 23 hours a day is as unnatural as it gets for human beings.
And this is why....we should only use the KJV bible and strive to learn the Hebrew to be able to go back to the original.
Hebrew and English are very different. And that's why I keep my Strong's concordance on me to reference the original Hebrew words before they were translated.
This doesn't make sense. The KJV is notoriously inaccurate, so why of all the versions would you choose to stick with that one? And again, Strong's Concordance just allows you to trace words. It doesn't actually help you understand what was being said or the context in which it was being said. You'd be much better off reading something like the New International Version, which was created with the expressed purpose of being as close to the original Aramaic and Hebrew as possible. For the third time, ? gave people directives to ? and he gave people powers (i.e. Samson), which he expected them to use for nothing else but killing. It would make absolutely no sense to believe that he would do that, not want people to ? under any circumstances.
.
I'm not tryna derail this any longer, but if you really want to know why after this post, hit the pm or make a thread....
But to understand why I say the KJV is the best is because it is the closest to the original scriptures in their native tongues. And because man is susceptible to error in translations, this is why I'm studying Hebrew and ALWAYS cross reference with the Strongs. And for you to say thisAnd again, Strong's Concordance just allows you to trace words. It doesn't actually help you understand what was being said or the context in which it was being said
Indicates to me tou dont understand how a Strong's Concordance works. For example, here are all the different Hebrew words used for the general English word "love"
http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=love
Now if you looked at that link, you will see all the different words in Hebrew that mean different types of "love" based on context. Bur in English, we would just translate each one of those DIFFERENT words as "love".
So knowing the Hebrew word originally used gives you better understanding of what is being said.
All these new translations are bastardized, paraphrased versions of the KJV....
http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/bacon-niv1.html
the only reason you are defending the exclusive use of the jkv is because you are a hebrew isralite ....keep it real because i know that is part of what you ? believe. the current jkv is not even the original one -
For Death Penalty (Courts/Jurors Decision)I support the death penalty 100%......some people deserve to die, point blank period. Can't no one look me in the eye and tell me someone like a Charles Manson or John Wayne Gacy doesn't deserve to die. I've read up on some torturing, ? ? type killers. those who are against the death penalty might want to do the same.
-
For Death Penalty (Courts/Jurors Decision)Special challenge to those against the death penalty.....Google Leonard Lake and Charles Ng. Then tell me some people don't deserve it
-
Pro-Life (Against death penalty)Judge_Judah wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »Judge_Judah wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »Judge_Judah wrote: »Judge_Judah wrote: »Judge_Judah wrote: »
Thou shalt not ? .
Ex 20:13
Strongs # 07523 for "? " in that verse.
RATSACH
I.to murder, slay, ?
A.(Qal) to murder, slay
i.premeditated
ii.accidental
iii.as avenger
iv.slayer (intentional) (participle)
B.(Niphal) to be slain
C.(Piel)
i.to murder, assassinate
ii.murderer, assassin (participle)(subst)
D.(Pual) to be killed
Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)
רָצַח râtsach, raw-tsakh'; a primitive root; properly, to dash in pieces, i.e. ? (a human being), especially to murder:—put to death, ? , (man-) slay(-er), murder(-er).
There is a difference in context you cannot just go by dictionary definitions outside of context. If people followed context they would be a lot less confused
That is the strongs number and definition used for that exact verse tho.....
So the definition given by strongs is in linev with what I said.
If you were quoting from exodus 20:13, yes sir.
From the wiki:
Unlike other Biblical reference books, the purpose of Strong's Concordance is not to provide content or commentary about the Bible, but to provide an index to the Bible.
Pretty much the only versions of the Bible that translate it as "Thou Shalt Not ? " is the KJV or variants of it. Go look in the NIV or NKJV or any other book that focuses on accuracy and you'll see it translated as "You shall not murder" or "You shall not commit murder." Again, it's silly to believe that ? commanded people not to ? considering how much he helped them do just that. Hell, in Deuteronomy ? specifically tells the Israelites to ? everyone they come across when they got to the promised land.
On topic, I don't see how anyone can say the Death Penalty is cruel. Being caged for the rest of your life, sometimes in solitary confinement is way more cruel. Every living thing dies. That's a natural part of life. Being trapped in a box for 23 hours a day is as unnatural as it gets for human beings.
And this is why....we should only use the KJV bible and strive to learn the Hebrew to be able to go back to the original.
Hebrew and English are very different. And that's why I keep my Strong's concordance on me to reference the original Hebrew words before they were translated.
This doesn't make sense. The KJV is notoriously inaccurate, so why of all the versions would you choose to stick with that one? And again, Strong's Concordance just allows you to trace words. It doesn't actually help you understand what was being said or the context in which it was being said. You'd be much better off reading something like the New International Version, which was created with the expressed purpose of being as close to the original Aramaic and Hebrew as possible. For the third time, ? gave people directives to ? and he gave people powers (i.e. Samson), which he expected them to use for nothing else but killing. It would make absolutely no sense to believe that he would do that, not want people to ? under any circumstances.
.
I'm not tryna derail this any longer, but if you really want to know why after this post, hit the pm or make a thread....
But to understand why I say the KJV is the best is because it is the closest to the original scriptures in their native tongues. And because man is susceptible to error in translations, this is why I'm studying Hebrew and ALWAYS cross reference with the Strongs. And for you to say thisAnd again, Strong's Concordance just allows you to trace words. It doesn't actually help you understand what was being said or the context in which it was being said
Indicates to me tou dont understand how a Strong's Concordance works. For example, here are all the different Hebrew words used for the general English word "love"
http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=love
Now if you looked at that link, you will see all the different words in Hebrew that mean different types of "love" based on context. Bur in English, we would just translate each one of those DIFFERENT words as "love".
So knowing the Hebrew word originally used gives you better understanding of what is being said.
All these new translations are bastardized, paraphrased versions of the KJV....
http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/bacon-niv1.html
the only reason you are defending the exclusive use of the jkv is because you are a hebrew isralite ....keep it real because i know that is part of what you ? believe. the current jkv is not even the original one
I use a 1611 KJV because it has the apocrypha. And in defending it because of the reasons in the post you quoted.
There seems to be varied opinions on Hebrew Israelites, which I guess is understandable. But I'm nothing like GMS or ISUPK Israelites.
But since you mentioned it....what is the original kjv? -
For Death Penalty (Courts/Jurors Decision)Like Water wrote: »? ain't quick enough for me. ? be on death row for like 30 years before they get put down. ? all that ? . Pedos and their ilk need to go too.
"Oh you murked someone? ? , you dying tomorrow."
Amen to that, the death penalty (in cases where the evidence is not in question or dispute) should be sped up, like it is in Saudi Arabia and most African countries. Waiting 20 or 30 years to die is ridiculous, ? that -
For Death Penalty (Victims family's decision)Judge_Judah wrote: »Judge_Judah wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »Judge_Judah wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »Judge_Judah wrote: »Judge_Judah wrote: »Judge_Judah wrote: »
Thou shalt not ? .
Ex 20:13
Strongs # 07523 for "? " in that verse.
RATSACH
I.to murder, slay, ?
A.(Qal) to murder, slay
i.premeditated
ii.accidental
iii.as avenger
iv.slayer (intentional) (participle)
B.(Niphal) to be slain
C.(Piel)
i.to murder, assassinate
ii.murderer, assassin (participle)(subst)
D.(Pual) to be killed
Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)
רָצַח râtsach, raw-tsakh'; a primitive root; properly, to dash in pieces, i.e. ? (a human being), especially to murder:—put to death, ? , (man-) slay(-er), murder(-er).
There is a difference in context you cannot just go by dictionary definitions outside of context. If people followed context they would be a lot less confused
That is the strongs number and definition used for that exact verse tho.....
So the definition given by strongs is in linev with what I said.
If you were quoting from exodus 20:13, yes sir.
From the wiki:
Unlike other Biblical reference books, the purpose of Strong's Concordance is not to provide content or commentary about the Bible, but to provide an index to the Bible.
Pretty much the only versions of the Bible that translate it as "Thou Shalt Not ? " is the KJV or variants of it. Go look in the NIV or NKJV or any other book that focuses on accuracy and you'll see it translated as "You shall not murder" or "You shall not commit murder." Again, it's silly to believe that ? commanded people not to ? considering how much he helped them do just that. Hell, in Deuteronomy ? specifically tells the Israelites to ? everyone they come across when they got to the promised land.
On topic, I don't see how anyone can say the Death Penalty is cruel. Being caged for the rest of your life, sometimes in solitary confinement is way more cruel. Every living thing dies. That's a natural part of life. Being trapped in a box for 23 hours a day is as unnatural as it gets for human beings.
And this is why....we should only use the KJV bible and strive to learn the Hebrew to be able to go back to the original.
Hebrew and English are very different. And that's why I keep my Strong's concordance on me to reference the original Hebrew words before they were translated.
This doesn't make sense. The KJV is notoriously inaccurate, so why of all the versions would you choose to stick with that one? And again, Strong's Concordance just allows you to trace words. It doesn't actually help you understand what was being said or the context in which it was being said. You'd be much better off reading something like the New International Version, which was created with the expressed purpose of being as close to the original Aramaic and Hebrew as possible. For the third time, ? gave people directives to ? and he gave people powers (i.e. Samson), which he expected them to use for nothing else but killing. It would make absolutely no sense to believe that he would do that, not want people to ? under any circumstances.
.
I'm not tryna derail this any longer, but if you really want to know why after this post, hit the pm or make a thread....
But to understand why I say the KJV is the best is because it is the closest to the original scriptures in their native tongues. And because man is susceptible to error in translations, this is why I'm studying Hebrew and ALWAYS cross reference with the Strongs. And for you to say thisAnd again, Strong's Concordance just allows you to trace words. It doesn't actually help you understand what was being said or the context in which it was being said
Indicates to me tou dont understand how a Strong's Concordance works. For example, here are all the different Hebrew words used for the general English word "love"
http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=love
Now if you looked at that link, you will see all the different words in Hebrew that mean different types of "love" based on context. Bur in English, we would just translate each one of those DIFFERENT words as "love".
So knowing the Hebrew word originally used gives you better understanding of what is being said.
All these new translations are bastardized, paraphrased versions of the KJV....
http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/bacon-niv1.html
the only reason you are defending the exclusive use of the jkv is because you are a hebrew isralite ....keep it real because i know that is part of what you ? believe. the current jkv is not even the original one
I use a 1611 KJV because it has the apocrypha. And in defending it because of the reasons in the post you quoted.
There seems to be varied opinions on Hebrew Israelites, which I guess is understandable. But I'm nothing like GMS or ISUPK Israelites.
But since you mentioned it....what is the original kjv?
The original one that went into mass production was the 1611 however the logic in only using a kjv of the bible when all versions of the jkv are imperfect translations makes no sense.
especially since the english language has changed so much since 1611 it doubly make no sense -
For Death Penalty (Courts/Jurors Decision)obnoxiouslyfresh wrote: »? _i_look_like wrote: »Only reason Im kinda against the death penalty is because its the easy way out compared to life in prison.
i've never understood this logic.
breathing >>>> not breathing
the first little stint is gonna suck in prison, but eventually you get used to it and that becomes your life.. you adapt and then you enjoy little dumb ? like the dessert at meal time, instead of whatever you enjoyed on the outside, but you're still alive, and ABLE to "enjoy" things, and think, and everything.
I tend to agree with this. I mean, how many "life without parole" prisoners are trying to get the death penalty? A lot less than vice versa. So I dont really buy into the idea that life is worse than the death penalty. But still, the idea for me is so horrific and primitive that I can't get with it.
And locking someone up in a prison cage for the REST of their life isn't horrific and primitive.....? Meanwhile, my taxpayer dollars gotta pay for some child molesting, psychopath ? that murked a whole family and tortured and did worse to them? ? THAT, it's better for everyone that someone like that is killed off and forgotten about.
And yes I get the death penalty process is expensive but if we speed up the death process, tax payer dollars can be wasted less. -
serial killers/rapists are rare...
-
For Death Penalty (Courts/Jurors Decision)Brother_Five wrote: »serial killers/rapists are rare...
True but they still exist in big enough numbers. It's estimated that there are hundreds and maybe thousands of serial killers in America alone. And torture murderers are not that rare, so the system needs to ? off people like that, before they become a threat to anyone else, including people in jail.
Just on principle alone, people like that shouldn't be allowed to live, and why should they. ? them. -
Pro-Life (Against death penalty)I just think the death penalty is Barbaric.
-
Pro-Life (Against death penalty)
WHEN Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas, he oversaw the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, a man so mentally disabled that he said he would save the pecan pie from his last meal “for later”. In 2002 the Supreme Court ruled that putting mentally ? people to death was “cruel and unusual”, and therefore unconstitutional. But the justices left it up to the states to define what “? ” meant, and this has proved so difficult that on March 3rd the issue came before the court again.kingblaze84 wrote: »Special challenge to those against the death penalty.....Google Leonard Lake and Charles Ng. Then tell me some people don't deserve it
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21598681-can-you-execute-man-whose-iq-71-death-mentally-disabled
Happens far more than the stuff you talking -
Pro-Life (Against death penalty)
WHEN Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas, he oversaw the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, a man so mentally disabled that he said he would save the pecan pie from his last meal “for later”. In 2002 the Supreme Court ruled that putting mentally ? people to death was “cruel and unusual”, and therefore unconstitutional. But the justices left it up to the states to define what “? ” meant, and this has proved so difficult that on March 3rd the issue came before the court again.kingblaze84 wrote: »Special challenge to those against the death penalty.....Google Leonard Lake and Charles Ng. Then tell me some people don't deserve it
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21598681-can-you-execute-man-whose-iq-71-death-mentally-disabled
Happens far more than the stuff you talking
I just holler'd. I actually screamed.
-
JDSTAYWITIT. wrote: »I'm gonna show you how wrong killing is by killing you!!
Lol ......
That's not what capital punishment is for
It's has no purpose .... And that is the problem -
For Death Penalty (Victims family's decision)JDSTAYWITIT. wrote: »JDSTAYWITIT. wrote: »I'm gonna show you how wrong killing is by killing you!!
Lol ......
That's not what capital punishment is for
It's has no purpose .... And that is the problem
It's purpose is to remove people that have proven that they are to dangerous to keep alive.
And to give the families of their victims satisfaction. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »obnoxiouslyfresh wrote: »? _i_look_like wrote: »Only reason Im kinda against the death penalty is because its the easy way out compared to life in prison.
i've never understood this logic.
breathing >>>> not breathing
the first little stint is gonna suck in prison, but eventually you get used to it and that becomes your life.. you adapt and then you enjoy little dumb ? like the dessert at meal time, instead of whatever you enjoyed on the outside, but you're still alive, and ABLE to "enjoy" things, and think, and everything.
I tend to agree with this. I mean, how many "life without parole" prisoners are trying to get the death penalty? A lot less than vice versa. So I dont really buy into the idea that life is worse than the death penalty. But still, the idea for me is so horrific and primitive that I can't get with it.
This is a fair point, but I think that's more because living things are kinda predisposed to cling to life. Most people don't become suicidal under any circumstances. Just because somebody is not choosing to leap to their deaths doesn't mean that their life is better than being dead.
I don't believe I'd commit suicide if I got life in prison, but I'd probably still prefer death over spending the rest of my life behind bars.
Living things are predisposed to prefer living ......lol ...what a novel concept
I will say tho that any inmate who has been given a life sentence with no chance of parole should have the option of voluntary euthanasia if desired ....although I doubt you'd have many capitolizing on the opportunity to escape the cruel torturous conditions of prison via death ...... -
For Death Penalty (Courts/Jurors Decision)
WHEN Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas, he oversaw the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, a man so mentally disabled that he said he would save the pecan pie from his last meal “for later”. In 2002 the Supreme Court ruled that putting mentally ? people to death was “cruel and unusual”, and therefore unconstitutional. But the justices left it up to the states to define what “? ” meant, and this has proved so difficult that on March 3rd the issue came before the court again.kingblaze84 wrote: »Special challenge to those against the death penalty.....Google Leonard Lake and Charles Ng. Then tell me some people don't deserve it
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21598681-can-you-execute-man-whose-iq-71-death-mentally-disabled
Happens far more than the stuff you talking
I'm not big on executing mentally ? people but if the crime is especially brutal, I'm not gonna have sympathy. I don't give a ? if Forrest Gump is on trial, if he or she has committed an especially brutal murder, I'll ? the muthafucka myself.
That goes for Ricky Ray too. If the crime is brutal and was not justified in ANY way, then my sympathy goes out the window. -
For Death Penalty (Courts/Jurors Decision)JDSTAYWITIT. wrote: »JDSTAYWITIT. wrote: »I'm gonna show you how wrong killing is by killing you!!
Lol ......
That's not what capital punishment is for
It's has no purpose .... And that is the problem
The purpose is JUSTICE and satisfaction of the family. Go ? a baby bear in front of a mother bear and tell me what that mother bear is gonna do to you. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »obnoxiouslyfresh wrote: »? _i_look_like wrote: »Only reason Im kinda against the death penalty is because its the easy way out compared to life in prison.
i've never understood this logic.
breathing >>>> not breathing
the first little stint is gonna suck in prison, but eventually you get used to it and that becomes your life.. you adapt and then you enjoy little dumb ? like the dessert at meal time, instead of whatever you enjoyed on the outside, but you're still alive, and ABLE to "enjoy" things, and think, and everything.
I tend to agree with this. I mean, how many "life without parole" prisoners are trying to get the death penalty? A lot less than vice versa. So I dont really buy into the idea that life is worse than the death penalty. But still, the idea for me is so horrific and primitive that I can't get with it.
And locking someone up in a prison cage for the REST of their life isn't horrific and primitive.....? Meanwhile, my taxpayer dollars gotta pay for some child molesting, psychopath ? that murked a whole family and tortured and did worse to them? ? THAT, it's better for everyone that someone like that is killed off and forgotten about.
And yes I get the death penalty process is expensive but if we speed up the death process, tax payer dollars can be wasted less.
"There have been 321 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States. The first DNA exoneration took place in 1989. Exonerations have been won in 38 states; since 2000, there have been 254 exonerations. 20 of the 321 people exonerated through DNA served time on death row."
? Your Innocence......What About My Tax Payer Dollars B! I Need A New Flatscreen ..What About Me!! ....Speed That ? Up!!
