Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
It costs more to kill them, than to house them for life.
We got ourselves here a bonafide financial genius, folks!
Apparently he is much smarter than you because he knows it costs more to execute someone than to pay for their lifetime incarceration. Guess that makes you the idiot.
Dead is dead.
I don't support the death penalty, but I have a hard time reconciling the fact that the same people who call this barbaric have no issue with the abuse that takes place in abortion clinics.
If they give Koch-ergrl a Rorshach test, every answer would be "abortion".
peanut sized fetuses aren't the same thing as full grown people.
My problem with the death penalty is not that the inmate "suffers". We could use a guillotine and acheive that result. A bit messy, but effective.
My problem with the death penalty is that we are going to get the wrong guy, eventually. If we haven't already.
Not an issue with abortion.
We got ourselves here a bonafide financial genius, folks!
Apparently he is much smarter than you because he knows it costs more to execute someone than to pay for their lifetime incarceration. Guess that makes you the idiot.
Apparently you didn't get the part of the LAWYER WELFARE that drives the costs up! Put a year time limit on it, even 2 years, and VOILA, there would be no comparison! But I guess that reading isn't one of your bright points!
Dead is dead.
I don't support the death penalty, but I have a hard time reconciling the fact that the same people who call this barbaric have no issue with the abuse that takes place in abortion clinics.
If they give Koch-ergrl a Rorshach test, every answer would be "abortion".
peanut sized fetuses aren't the same thing as full grown people.
My problem with the death penalty is not that the inmate "suffers". We could use a guillotine and acheive that result. A bit messy, but effective.
My problem with the death penalty is that we are going to get the wrong guy, eventually. If we haven't already.
Not an issue with abortion.
You're right, they are not the same. One is an adult having had the luxury of birth, the other not yet experiencing that luxury. However both are human lives.
Either you support the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or you don't.
It's obvious you don't.
If they give Koch-ergrl a Rorshach test, every answer would be "abortion".
peanut sized fetuses aren't the same thing as full grown people.
My problem with the death penalty is not that the inmate "suffers". We could use a guillotine and acheive that result. A bit messy, but effective.
My problem with the death penalty is that we are going to get the wrong guy, eventually. If we haven't already.
Not an issue with abortion.
You're right, they are not the same. One is an adult having had the luxury of birth, the other not yet experiencing that luxury. However both are human lives.
Either you support the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or you don't.
It's obvious you don't.
Lonestar - I agree with you in that I too believe a fetus is a human being who has the right to protection under our legal system. But if you don't recognize the right of others to disagree and accept that good, intelligent, moral people can look at the same situation and come up with a different answer, you aren't going to change anyone's mind. And it is clear to me anyway, that if we are to get our nation to recognize a fetus as a human being with rights, we are going to have to change some minds.
What does the White House and Supreme Court have to do with criminal trials?Nobody wants to admit the real problem. The real problem is that the courts are jammed up and there is a ridiculous waiting list to get cases heard. Everytime the suggestion is made that the number of federal judges that can adjudicate these death penalty cases comes up, the party that is not in control of the White House complains about "court packing" and does everything they can do to prevent not only an increase in the number of judges and courts that can hear these cases, they prevent the current allowable judges from being named. Makes no difference whether the Republicans or Democrats are in charge of the White House or the Senate.
What is needed is a special court, perhaps a temporary court of retired federal judges, that could be dedicated to only hearing these death penalty cases until the waiting list is reduced to a manageable number that would allow cases to be heard in a reasonable time period. They could concentrate on making sure the Supremes could handle the final portions of the case in a timely fashion.
What does the White House and Supreme Court have to do with criminal trials?Nobody wants to admit the real problem. The real problem is that the courts are jammed up and there is a ridiculous waiting list to get cases heard. Everytime the suggestion is made that the number of federal judges that can adjudicate these death penalty cases comes up, the party that is not in control of the White House complains about "court packing" and does everything they can do to prevent not only an increase in the number of judges and courts that can hear these cases, they prevent the current allowable judges from being named. Makes no difference whether the Republicans or Democrats are in charge of the White House or the Senate.
What is needed is a special court, perhaps a temporary court of retired federal judges, that could be dedicated to only hearing these death penalty cases until the waiting list is reduced to a manageable number that would allow cases to be heard in a reasonable time period. They could concentrate on making sure the Supremes could handle the final portions of the case in a timely fashion.
I'd give out the death penalty with a 100% certainty of guilt. Eyewitnesses and or irrefutable evidence. Then carry it out swiftly by hanging. Mankind has had hanging down to a fine science long ago utilizing weights. It's quick and neat, no mess or lingering death.
I haven't looked at every post on here so I will ask does anyone know the name of Clayton Locketts victim and what was done to her? For those who don't her name was Stephanie Neiman she was beaten bound with duct tape her mouth was taped shut shot and buried alive. It would be nice if everyone would take a break from discussing Lockett's suffering and what he went through to think about Stephanie Neiman's suffering and what she went through botched or execution or not he earned his death she didn't.
What does the White House and Supreme Court have to do with criminal trials?Nobody wants to admit the real problem. The real problem is that the courts are jammed up and there is a ridiculous waiting list to get cases heard. Everytime the suggestion is made that the number of federal judges that can adjudicate these death penalty cases comes up, the party that is not in control of the White House complains about "court packing" and does everything they can do to prevent not only an increase in the number of judges and courts that can hear these cases, they prevent the current allowable judges from being named. Makes no difference whether the Republicans or Democrats are in charge of the White House or the Senate.
What is needed is a special court, perhaps a temporary court of retired federal judges, that could be dedicated to only hearing these death penalty cases until the waiting list is reduced to a manageable number that would allow cases to be heard in a reasonable time period. They could concentrate on making sure the Supremes could handle the final portions of the case in a timely fashion.
I'd give out the death penalty with a 100% certainty of guilt. Eyewitnesses and or irrefutable evidence. Then carry it out swiftly by hanging. Mankind has had hanging down to a fine science long ago utilizing weights. It's quick and neat, no mess or lingering death.
You're right, they are not the same. One is an adult having had the luxury of birth, the other not yet experiencing that luxury. However both are human lives.
Either you support the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or you don't.
It's obvious you don't.
Lonestar - I agree with you in that I too believe a fetus is a human being who has the right to protection under our legal system. But if you don't recognize the right of others to disagree and accept that good, intelligent, moral people can look at the same situation and come up with a different answer, you aren't going to change anyone's mind. And it is clear to me anyway, that if we are to get our nation to recognize a fetus as a human being with rights, we are going to have to change some minds.
A good, intelligent, moral people cannot possibly come up with the different answer. The facts are the facts and only a moron would suggest that fetus isn't a human life and thus does not deserve protection.
I understand there are many that don't recognize a fetus as a human being with rights, but those people, as I have said are not intelligent, moral or good.
What does the White House and Supreme Court have to do with criminal trials?Nobody wants to admit the real problem. The real problem is that the courts are jammed up and there is a ridiculous waiting list to get cases heard. Everytime the suggestion is made that the number of federal judges that can adjudicate these death penalty cases comes up, the party that is not in control of the White House complains about "court packing" and does everything they can do to prevent not only an increase in the number of judges and courts that can hear these cases, they prevent the current allowable judges from being named. Makes no difference whether the Republicans or Democrats are in charge of the White House or the Senate.
What is needed is a special court, perhaps a temporary court of retired federal judges, that could be dedicated to only hearing these death penalty cases until the waiting list is reduced to a manageable number that would allow cases to be heard in a reasonable time period. They could concentrate on making sure the Supremes could handle the final portions of the case in a timely fashion.
I'd give out the death penalty with a 100% certainty of guilt. Eyewitnesses and or irrefutable evidence. Then carry it out swiftly by hanging. Mankind has had hanging down to a fine science long ago utilizing weights. It's quick and neat, no mess or lingering death.
What does the White House and Supreme Court have to do with criminal trials?Nobody wants to admit the real problem. The real problem is that the courts are jammed up and there is a ridiculous waiting list to get cases heard. Everytime the suggestion is made that the number of federal judges that can adjudicate these death penalty cases comes up, the party that is not in control of the White House complains about "court packing" and does everything they can do to prevent not only an increase in the number of judges and courts that can hear these cases, they prevent the current allowable judges from being named. Makes no difference whether the Republicans or Democrats are in charge of the White House or the Senate.
What is needed is a special court, perhaps a temporary court of retired federal judges, that could be dedicated to only hearing these death penalty cases until the waiting list is reduced to a manageable number that would allow cases to be heard in a reasonable time period. They could concentrate on making sure the Supremes could handle the final portions of the case in a timely fashion.
I'd give out the death penalty with a 100% certainty of guilt. Eyewitnesses and or irrefutable evidence. Then carry it out swiftly by hanging. Mankind has had hanging down to a fine science long ago utilizing weights. It's quick and neat, no mess or lingering death.
There is no such thing as 100% certainty - so you are apparently arguing for abolishing the death penalty. You might be surprised at how often eyewitness accounts are wrong. And the more swiftly you carry out the sentence, the more often we'll wind up killing people who are not guilty of the crime we are killing them for.
Wrong, many times there is no doubt and it's proven as a fact. I didn't say one eyewitness either. Sometimes there are many. Sometimes DNA proves it. Sometimes fingerprints, teeth marks, etc.I'd give out the death penalty with a 100% certainty of guilt. Eyewitnesses and or irrefutable evidence. Then carry it out swiftly by hanging. Mankind has had hanging down to a fine science long ago utilizing weights. It's quick and neat, no mess or lingering death.
There is no such thing as 100% certainty - so you are apparently arguing for abolishing the death penalty. You might be surprised at how often eyewitness accounts are wrong. And the more swiftly you carry out the sentence, the more often we'll wind up killing people who are not guilty of the crime we are killing them for.
I wonder if anybody in the prison system considered the possibility of sabotage. Lefties invented the old saying "the end justifies the means" and I wouldn't put it past them to intentionally botch an execution in order to make a political statement especially when the Obama administration is in such disarray. .
I am pretty sure that liberals are responsible for the disappearance of Elvis, the failure of the Edsel automobile, teenage acne, dandruff, and the heartbreak of psoriasis, too....
Apparently he is much smarter than you because he knows it costs more to execute someone than to pay for their lifetime incarceration. Guess that makes you the idiot.
Apparently you didn't get the part of the LAWYER WELFARE that drives the costs up! Put a year time limit on it, even 2 years, and VOILA, there would be no comparison! But I guess that reading isn't one of your bright points!
The problem with that is that for every layer of review that we eliminate, we increase the number of people we will execute for crimes they did not commit.
What does the White House and Supreme Court have to do with criminal trials?Nobody wants to admit the real problem. The real problem is that the courts are jammed up and there is a ridiculous waiting list to get cases heard. Everytime the suggestion is made that the number of federal judges that can adjudicate these death penalty cases comes up, the party that is not in control of the White House complains about "court packing" and does everything they can do to prevent not only an increase in the number of judges and courts that can hear these cases, they prevent the current allowable judges from being named. Makes no difference whether the Republicans or Democrats are in charge of the White House or the Senate.
What is needed is a special court, perhaps a temporary court of retired federal judges, that could be dedicated to only hearing these death penalty cases until the waiting list is reduced to a manageable number that would allow cases to be heard in a reasonable time period. They could concentrate on making sure the Supremes could handle the final portions of the case in a timely fashion.
I'd give out the death penalty with a 100% certainty of guilt. Eyewitnesses and or irrefutable evidence. Then carry it out swiftly by hanging. Mankind has had hanging down to a fine science long ago utilizing weights. It's quick and neat, no mess or lingering death.
There is no such thing as 100% certainty - so you are apparently arguing for abolishing the death penalty. You might be surprised at how often eyewitness accounts are wrong. And the more swiftly you carry out the sentence, the more often we'll wind up killing people who are not guilty of the crime we are killing them for.
