Court bans death penalty for child rape

[Funkmasterr]

Of course I wouldn't be ok with it, but that's the way that it goes. A couple of people are pretty small in the grand scheme of things, and if my choices are that or letting every asshole on death row get 50 appeals trials, 3 meals a day, etc, etc all off of our dollar, I'm gonna stick with my original choice.

No innocent people being caught up in the system, regardless of how small the number, should be acceptable to a civilized person. The fact that you think it's OK to murder a few innocent people just so long as you get to murder a lot of criminals (rather than simply imprisoning) them says much about you and your cohorts. The fact that you'd happily do away with the appeals process and summarily execute them says even more.

Yeah, you're so much better than me because I don't want to let some guy that got convicted with overwhelming evidence of murdering someone appeal 40 times and maybe get out of jail as a result.

But I guess I should have expected the response I got when I say something like I did to a bunch of idealistic daydreamers. Silly me.

[Boogahz]

Of course I wouldn't be ok with it, but that's the way that it goes. A couple of people are pretty small in the grand scheme of things, and if my choices are that or letting every asshole on death row get 50 appeals trials, 3 meals a day, etc, etc all off of our dollar, I'm gonna stick with my original choice.

No innocent people being caught up in the system, regardless of how small the number, should be acceptable to a civilized person. The fact that you think it's OK to murder a few innocent people just so long as you get to murder a lot of criminals (rather than simply imprisoning) them says much about you and your cohorts. The fact that you'd happily do away with the appeals process and summarily execute them says even more.

Yeah, you're so much better than me because I don't want to let some guy that got convicted with overwhelming evidence of murdering someone appeal 40 times and maybe get out of jail as a result.

But I guess I should have expected the response I got when I say something like I did to a bunch of idealistic daydreamers. Silly me.

Where did anyone say that the guy who IS guilty doesn't deserve it? The only problem people have with what you're saying is that you don't mind if taking away those appeals means the guy that did NOT do the crime dies.

[Xatrei]

Ever heard of war? collateral damage, perhaps?

What's that? I can't hear you over the sound of your vagina.

Are you so fucking stupid that you don't know the difference between a war, and choosing to murder criminals because we don't want to bother imprisoning them?

[Funkmasterr]

Of course I wouldn't be ok with it, but that's the way that it goes. A couple of people are pretty small in the grand scheme of things, and if my choices are that or letting every asshole on death row get 50 appeals trials, 3 meals a day, etc, etc all off of our dollar, I'm gonna stick with my original choice.

No innocent people being caught up in the system, regardless of how small the number, should be acceptable to a civilized person. The fact that you think it's OK to murder a few innocent people just so long as you get to murder a lot of criminals (rather than simply imprisoning) them says much about you and your cohorts. The fact that you'd happily do away with the appeals process and summarily execute them says even more.

Yeah, you're so much better than me because I don't want to let some guy that got convicted with overwhelming evidence of murdering someone appeal 40 times and maybe get out of jail as a result.

But I guess I should have expected the response I got when I say something like I did to a bunch of idealistic daydreamers. Silly me.

Where did anyone say that the guy who IS guilty doesn't deserve it? The only problem people have with what you're saying is that you don't mind if taking away those appeals means the guy that did NOT do the crime dies.

You're right, I don't. I just want to be spared the lesson in morals and liberal idealism.

And they are saying they are ok with that NOT happening. You know what could likely be the end result of that? A whole lot more than 2 innocent lives could be ruined.

[Fash]

Ever heard of war? collateral damage, perhaps?

What's that? I can't hear you over the sound of your vagina.

Are you so fucking stupid that you don't know the difference between a war, and choosing to murder criminals because we don't want to bother imprisoning them?

Are you so fucking stupid that you don't see the similarity? It's the War on Crime!

[Truant]

This thread is so fucking stupid.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

This thread is so fucking stupid.

Actually it's a very good thread discussing a very touchy subject.

[Spang]

No, it's not a very good thread.

[Xatrei]

For the usual reasons.

[Funkmasterr]

No, it's not a very good thread.

um, you're not a very good thread.

[Funkmasterr]

For the usual reasons.

What usual reasons? Because you don't agree with me (and/or midnyte, whoever), and you can't fathom why anyone wouldn't share your peace loving opinions it makes the thread worthless?

You people and your complete bullshit delusions crack me up.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

What sucks is their air of superiority. Any thread that discusses a differing opinion is shit and those who share those differing opinions are all morons. It's really quite sad. It's gottn to a point where I no longer believe folks like Spang, Nick, etc. I think they just say things to be difficult and cause grief. They can't really be as narrow minded, bitter and hate-filled and yet act compassionate all at the same time. No way.

[Xatrei]

It's not the different opinions, it's you guys in particular. You have time and again proven yourselves to be morons, and you get treated accordingly.

[Fash]

How's the weather up there on your high horse?

You've proven to be a complete and total douchebag, no matter how reasonable the argument.

[Truant]

It's gottn to a point where I no longer believe folks like Spang, Nick, etc. I think they just say things to be difficult and cause grief.

Funny, I feel that's what you and Funk do around here.

[Funkmasterr]

It's gottn to a point where I no longer believe folks like Spang, Nick, etc. I think they just say things to be difficult and cause grief.

Funny, I feel that's what you and Funk do around here.

I assure you I have never once done that unless someone went out of their way to do it first.

You're welcome to guess again, though.

[Xatrei]

How's the weather up there on your high horse?

You've proven to be a complete and total douchebag, no matter how reasonable the argument.

One doesn't need much of a high horse from which to look down upon you guys. I'm still looking for the often cited yet never witnessed "reasonable arguments" from any of you chowderheads.

[Fash]

[Forthe]

I only support the death penalty with a very high standard of proof (absolutely no doubt). If such a standard was met I have no problem with no appeals.

[Funkmasterr]

How's the weather up there on your high horse?

You've proven to be a complete and total douchebag, no matter how reasonable the argument.

One doesn't need much of a high horse from which to look down upon you guys. I'm still looking for the often cited yet never witnessed "reasonable arguments" from any of you chowderheads.

How have I been unreasonable in this thread. Is it really that fun for you to be such a arrogant, uppity prick? Like I said, whether you agree with me or not has zero to do with the FACT that I have been discussing the topic at hand, but you are totally unwilling to look at the other side of anything because you think it's so ridiculous that someone wouldn't agree with you.

Then, when we can't be part of the conversation because you think our view on something is stupid and you all write it off right away, and we get pissed and derail the thread, you always seem surprised. You fucking tards bring it on yourselves.


Trust me when I tell you, and most of the other cocky pricks here that act like you - you aren't as smart or clever or funny or anything else as you think you are - so just get off it.

[Funkmasterr]

I only support the death penalty with a very high standard of proof (absolutely no doubt). If such a standard was met I have no problem with no appeals.

I would say I'm close to being on the same page with you here, I just never bothered to explain that, since the usual fucks jumped on me right away.

[Sueven]

I actually agree with Funk and Mid and crew, sort of.

IF there were only 2 wrongful convictions in the past decade, sure, I'd be fine with that. It's an acceptable margin of error.

Of course, the notion that there have been only two is completely ludicrous. So I don't actually agree, I just think the argument's on the wrong track.

The problem with the "higher standard of proof for death penalty" argument: The standard is ALREADY 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' What could be higher?

[Drolgin Steingrinder]

but you are totally unwilling to look at the other side of anything because you think it's so ridiculous that someone wouldn't agree with you.

...potkettleblacketc?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

but you are totally unwilling to look at the other side of anything because you think it's so ridiculous that someone wouldn't agree with you.

...potkettleblacketc?

Nope. I never hold on to a stance just to do so. I have apologized and retracted on things I've said numerous times. Show me where you have.

[Drolgin Steingrinder]

I agree that you have, Mid - and I admire you for that. I still fundamentally disagree with 99% of your opinions as stated here and I doubt that anything is likely to make that change, just as I doubt you'll change and see things my way. I'll weigh any argument that's presented rationally and based in logic, but I'm not going to be swayed just because someone else says so - noone should. We just see the world differently, and that's fine. We both get heated in discussion and get caught up in our loathing for what we see as an un-understandable (is that a word? if not I just made it up!) position on the other ones side, and that's what causes the bitching and moaning.

Funk never attempts to change his position and the first time someone disagrees with him he flies into a foaming-at-the-mouth bitchfest. He is as rabid as the worst of those you see on "the other side" - worse in fact, because he argues completely from sentiment and never from rationale. And he has the audacity to call out people for not looking at the other side? I'll reserve my right to call him out in turn.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I agree that you have, Mid - and I admire you for that. I still fundamentally disagree with 99% of your opinions as stated here and I doubt that anything is likely to make that change, just as I doubt you'll change and see things my way. I'll weigh any argument that's presented rationally and based in logic, but I'm not going to be swayed just because someone else says so - noone should. We just see the world differently, and that's fine. We both get heated in discussion and get caught up in our loathing for what we see as an un-understandable (is that a word? if not I just made it up!) position on the other ones side, and that's what causes the bitching and moaning.

Fair enough Drol. I respect you for saying that.

[Funkmasterr]

I agree that you have, Mid - and I admire you for that. I still fundamentally disagree with 99% of your opinions as stated here and I doubt that anything is likely to make that change, just as I doubt you'll change and see things my way. I'll weigh any argument that's presented rationally and based in logic, but I'm not going to be swayed just because someone else says so - noone should. We just see the world differently, and that's fine. We both get heated in discussion and get caught up in our loathing for what we see as an un-understandable (is that a word? if not I just made it up!) position on the other ones side, and that's what causes the bitching and moaning.

Funk never attempts to change his position and the first time someone disagrees with him he flies into a foaming-at-the-mouth bitchfest. He is as rabid as the worst of those you see on "the other side" - worse in fact, because he argues completely from sentiment and never from rationale. And he has the audacity to call out people for not looking at the other side? I'll reserve my right to call him out in turn.

Funk doesn't have the time of day for people that enjoy getting a rise out of others for a laugh. In fact, he holds them in about the lowest regard he possibly can (and that covers a good, what, 30% of the regular posters here, at least.)

Funk also doesn't have the time to deal with people who are complete hypocrites, and especially not for people who have a large enough misconception to call him one.

I think you will notice - the things I get bent out of shape about are a select few topics, which unfortunately someone feels the need to bring up here 5 times a day. The really important issues to me I have decided on, argued, been presented the other side a plethora of times, and I am firm in what I think.

Therefore, I don't have any desire to listen to the other side of the argument AGAIN because I've already heard it a million times, AND because most people here are cocks about the way they say it.

Anyone around here who actually argues an issue with me without resorting to calling names and/or trying to annoy me will see me have a completely fair argument with them. Anyone who does one of the things I listed above, will not. I don't care if this is VV and that's how people are - it's unacceptable and obnoxious to me and I will react accordingly.

[Spang]

What sucks is their air of superiority. Any thread that discusses a differing opinion is shit and those who share those differing opinions are all morons. It's really quite sad. It's gottn to a point where I no longer believe folks like Spang, Nick, etc. I think they just say things to be difficult and cause grief. They can't really be as narrow minded, bitter and hate-filled and yet act compassionate all at the same time. No way.

I'm filled with sarcasm mostly. To be honest, I don't like you. I really don't. You might be kick ass in real life or in some video game, but here - you suck. I can't stand you. I rarely agree with you, and if I did, it wouldn't change the way I feel about you. I don't care what you believe in, what you agree with or disagree with, who you support or don't support. It doesn't matter. You're an asshole. You've always been an asshole, and this will never change.

[Funkmasterr]

What sucks is their air of superiority. Any thread that discusses a differing opinion is shit and those who share those differing opinions are all morons. It's really quite sad. It's gottn to a point where I no longer believe folks like Spang, Nick, etc. I think they just say things to be difficult and cause grief. They can't really be as narrow minded, bitter and hate-filled and yet act compassionate all at the same time. No way.

I'm filled with sarcasm mostly. To be honest, I don't like you. I really don't. You might be kick ass in real life or in some video game, but here - you suck. I can't stand you. I rarely agree with you, and if I did, it wouldn't change the way I feel about you. I don't care what you believe in, what you agree with or disagree with, who you support or don't support. It doesn't matter. You're an asshole. You've always been an asshole, and this will never change.

That's how I feel about many, many people here. For example; xatrei, xyun, zaelath, bagar, nick (most of the time), and siji, amongst a good handful of others.


But you know what, I know those people are probably not going to stop posting in the near future, just like I won't. And because I know that, I will still not go out of my way to say something fucked up to them every (or even most) times they post, because that will just make my experience here worse in the long run.

Side note: I would also like to say I am a very sarcastic person as well in real life, some people do have a hard time telling whether I am being serious or not until I explain that to them. But people can't read that online, most of the time you just come off as a prick, so I turn that part of me off to the best of my ability on VV.

And no spang, I don't think you're a prick. I think you are a decent guy most of the time here, but I think sarcasm might be a big reason why people don't get along well here, because people are never real sure if you are being sarcastic unless they have got to know you real well.

[Acies]

Funk, I cannot tell if you are serious or not about you considering it acceptable to allow innocent people to die to kill those that deserve it, but in the instance you are...

Would you enjoy it much if it was you, or your family, that had to fill the role of that "acceptable loss" that had to die in order to insure a brighter, safer tommarow? I know I wouldn't, and would fight for my life against the authorities, not hesitating to kill them, if I thought I was going to die for something I did not do. Especially knowing that due process was not allowed to me. To think nothing if it happened to my significant other, or god forbid, down the line, my children!

Hell, if that happened, I would leave this country as soon as I could, shaking my head at the rebirth of the gestapo and the people who remained because they thought they could trust a system such as that.

[Wulfran]

The problem with the "higher standard of proof for death penalty" argument: The standard is ALREADY 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' What could be higher?

Idunno... how about this way
"beyond reasonable doubt" = life with no parole
"beyond any doubt" = death penalty

Thats honestly the way I would like to see it but we abolished the death penalty in Canada over 30 years ago* and there's no political will to bring it back, even for the most heinous of criminals. I know the tin hat crowd will say shit like most physical evidence including video footage and DNA can be faked, and eye witnesses are unreliable, but lets be honest: if 16 people and 3 security cams see Kilmoll rob a bank and shoot 2 guards, there's no faking shit like that (sorry Kilmoll but you're too easy a target ).

Like I commented previously, cost isn't an issue to me, the security of the public and especially kids trumps that by a long shot, and I also believe in due process: as flawed as it may be in our countries, it IS what differentiates us from places like Zimbabwe, Iran, N. Korea or China.


* It is supposedly still on books as a punishment for High Treason but we're also a country that refused to charge Quebec politicians with that before the last referendum on seperation, when seperatist politicians sent letters to french military personnel encouraging them to desert and bring their gear to help build the armed forces of an independent Quebec when they won (as these politicos assumed they would).

[miir]

I stopped reading after:

Wow. It just keeps getting worse. Keep voting those liberals into office guys.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

I stopped reading this post after:

Miir

I stopped reading after:

Wow. It just keeps getting worse. Keep voting those liberals into office guys.

[Fairweather Pure]

Yes. Sacrifice for the greater good. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.

Sounds like a universal health care slogan to me. Wait, aren't you against that? Given the context of the ideals you present here, universal health care would have a much better and more meaningful impact on "the people" than killing someone who commited a crime, no matter how bad that crime may have been.

Yeah, it's funny how quick people jump on the "death penalty isn't cheaper" defense.

People are quick to jump on this fact because the pro death camp always claim it's cheaper to simply kill people, which is 100% incorrect. It is correcting misinformation, nothing more.

This thread is a good example of the "flow" of a pro death vs no death discussion. I get into these discussions at work and can out talk anyone that comes at me with a pro death stance because most people have no clue what they are talking about and this is one of the most structured conversations/debates that anyone can have. This is generally an easy and fun debate to have and I can argue both sides, but I personally feel that only one is right.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Yes. Sacrifice for the greater good. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.

Sounds like a universal health care slogan to me. Wait, aren't you against that? Given the context of the ideals you present here, universal health care would have a much better and more meaningful impact on "the people" than killing someone who commited a crime, no matter how bad that crime may have been.

.

Two different things.

I do prefer privatized healthcare. I prefer privatized many things. It's the very key to capitalism. I'm for less government control over every aspect of our life. If the market desires something, it will be made, changed, improved, etc.

[Forthe]

The problem with the "higher standard of proof for death penalty" argument: The standard is ALREADY 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' What could be higher?

Idunno... how about this way
"beyond reasonable doubt" = life with no parole
"beyond any doubt" = death penalty

That is how I would like the death penalty to work as well. If the "beyond any doubt" standard were met I see no reason for appeals as well. Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka would be my example case that meets this standard.

"Beyond reasonable doubt" is not a strong standard. What may be reasonable for one person may be totally unreasonable to the next person. I totally disagree with the death penalty sentence of Scott Peterson. All the circumstancial evidence in the world does not prove a truth, it implies a truth. With no direct evidence how can there not be reasonable doubt?