Why dont we solve the problem, instead of executing people ?

[TheDude]

For those who support our lowest forms of life, consider the following example:

Guy breaks into your house. There are witnesses and the culprit lacks an alibi. He rapes and then kills your little girl. His DNA is everywhere. He even admits guilt.

Give me ONE good reason this guy should live longer than a week after declared guilty. Additionally, these types of cases should be expedited as priority.

We all know our courts are jammed with bureaucrats, but I promise you, that wouldn't be the case if we stopped pampering leaches, including the attorneys who represent them.

Plain and simple: I do not trust the court system that much.

Note: in this area, four people were knowingly and deliberately framed for murder by the FBI...the only reason none were executed was the Supreme Court stopping executions.

Who said anything about court?

 

[Eloy]

I really think child predators should be killed. They serve no purpose to society except for menace and terror. Their crimes are usually always premeditated and they are manipulative beings by nature because that is part of what makes them the evil monsters that they are. They cannot be cured of their sick disease either. There is always going to be a risk to children when you release one of these pedophiles into society.

There has been a pedophile posting on another forum that I'm at, advocating for being able to sex up our children without interference by the law. It should be a "choice" of the children he says. That just proves to me that this guy should be killed. That is the logical thing to do, IMO. I wouldn't mind strangling him myself. I don't have any pity for him whatsoever.

The more you write, the more you make my point that brutal people are in favor of killing.

Killing them is not brutal. It is doing society in general a favor. Anyone who targets children is not worthy of being treated like a human being.

You are wrong to dehumanize any person. When you start doing that, to have taken the step in the road to state murder.

"You are wrong to dehumanize any person"

Nope, they chose to dehumanize themselves by committing the atrocity(s) they did. It's as simple as that.

Wherever you see crimes against humanity, without exception, the victims have been dehumanized in a similar way that Americans treat those convicted of a capital crime. It is a sad pattern.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I really think child predators should be killed. They serve no purpose to society except for menace and terror. Their crimes are usually always premeditated and they are manipulative beings by nature because that is part of what makes them the evil monsters that they are. They cannot be cured of their sick disease either. There is always going to be a risk to children when you release one of these pedophiles into society.

There has been a pedophile posting on another forum that I'm at, advocating for being able to sex up our children without interference by the law. It should be a "choice" of the children he says. That just proves to me that this guy should be killed. That is the logical thing to do, IMO. I wouldn't mind strangling him myself. I don't have any pity for him whatsoever.

The more you write, the more you make my point that brutal people are in favor of killing.

Killing them is not brutal. It is doing society in general a favor. Anyone who targets children is not worthy of being treated like a human being.

You are wrong to dehumanize any person. When you start doing that, to have taken the step in the road to state murder.

"You are wrong to dehumanize any person"

Nope, they chose to dehumanize themselves by committing the atrocity(s) they did. It's as simple as that.

Wherever you see crimes against humanity, without exception, the victims have been dehumanized in a similar way that Americans treat those convicted of a capital crime. It is a sad pattern.

No, because we execute killers in a pleasant and peaceful manor. They have plenty of time to say goodbye to loved ones and get their personal items in order. They are able to make peace with their God (If they believe in one) before death.

Murderers kill their victims with no regard for them, their family, or their loved ones. Many times it's brutal, bloody and torturous. The victims were only given moments or minutes before learning they were about to die.

 

[Eloy]

The more you write, the more you make my point that brutal people are in favor of killing.

Killing them is not brutal. It is doing society in general a favor. Anyone who targets children is not worthy of being treated like a human being.

You are wrong to dehumanize any person. When you start doing that, to have taken the step in the road to state murder.

"You are wrong to dehumanize any person"

Nope, they chose to dehumanize themselves by committing the atrocity(s) they did. It's as simple as that.

Wherever you see crimes against humanity, without exception, the victims have been dehumanized in a similar way that Americans treat those convicted of a capital crime. It is a sad pattern.

No, because we execute killers in a pleasant and peaceful manor. ...

Oh for Pete's sake. Give us a break.

 

[Papageorgio]

I really think child predators should be killed. They serve no purpose to society except for menace and terror. Their crimes are usually always premeditated and they are manipulative beings by nature because that is part of what makes them the evil monsters that they are. They cannot be cured of their sick disease either. There is always going to be a risk to children when you release one of these pedophiles into society.

There has been a pedophile posting on another forum that I'm at, advocating for being able to sex up our children without interference by the law. It should be a "choice" of the children he says. That just proves to me that this guy should be killed. That is the logical thing to do, IMO. I wouldn't mind strangling him myself. I don't have any pity for him whatsoever.

The more you write, the more you make my point that brutal people are in favor of killing.

Killing them is not brutal. It is doing society in general a favor. Anyone who targets children is not worthy of being treated like a human being.

You are wrong to dehumanize any person. When you start doing that, to have taken the step in the road to state murder.

"You are wrong to dehumanize any person"

Nope, they chose to dehumanize themselves by committing the atrocity(s) they did. It's as simple as that.

Wherever you see crimes against humanity, without exception, the victims have been dehumanized in a similar way that Americans treat those convicted of a capital crime. It is a sad pattern.

So we should hoist the murderer up as a hero? There is no dehumanizing. The person took a life and dehumanized another person. Most you can't let out again because they will repeat. They are not fit to live or work in the real world.

There is no "crime against humanity" it is a way to handle those who dehumanize their fellow citizens.

 

[Eloy]

The more you write, the more you make my point that brutal people are in favor of killing.

Killing them is not brutal. It is doing society in general a favor. Anyone who targets children is not worthy of being treated like a human being.

You are wrong to dehumanize any person. When you start doing that, to have taken the step in the road to state murder.

"You are wrong to dehumanize any person"

Nope, they chose to dehumanize themselves by committing the atrocity(s) they did. It's as simple as that.

Wherever you see crimes against humanity, without exception, the victims have been dehumanized in a similar way that Americans treat those convicted of a capital crime. It is a sad pattern.

So we should hoist the murderer up as a hero? There is no dehumanizing. The person took a life and dehumanized another person. Most you can't let out again because they will repeat. They are not fit to live or work in the real world.

There is no "crime against humanity" it is a way to handle those who dehumanize their fellow citizens.

Most Americans probably agree with you.

 

[Papageorgio]

Killing them is not brutal. It is doing society in general a favor. Anyone who targets children is not worthy of being treated like a human being.

You are wrong to dehumanize any person. When you start doing that, to have taken the step in the road to state murder.

"You are wrong to dehumanize any person"

Nope, they chose to dehumanize themselves by committing the atrocity(s) they did. It's as simple as that.

Wherever you see crimes against humanity, without exception, the victims have been dehumanized in a similar way that Americans treat those convicted of a capital crime. It is a sad pattern.

So we should hoist the murderer up as a hero? There is no dehumanizing. The person took a life and dehumanized another person. Most you can't let out again because they will repeat. They are not fit to live or work in the real world.

There is no "crime against humanity" it is a way to handle those who dehumanize their fellow citizens.

Most Americans probably agree with you.

I don't know if they do or don't, nor does it matter. There has to be a penalty for taking another person's life. Lives are to be cherished, those that take someone else's needs to be punished and if that punishment is deemed to be death, than so be it.

Your claim that the person that has taken another's life is dehumanized is utter nonsense. So again, you have proved nothing, no crime against humanity, no dehumanizing, you proved nothing. Also the state cannot "murder" anyone in a case where someone is put to death, that is more silly stuff and emotion.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I don't support the death penalty.... soooooo........

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Killing them is not brutal. It is doing society in general a favor. Anyone who targets children is not worthy of being treated like a human being.

You are wrong to dehumanize any person. When you start doing that, to have taken the step in the road to state murder.

"You are wrong to dehumanize any person"

Nope, they chose to dehumanize themselves by committing the atrocity(s) they did. It's as simple as that.

Wherever you see crimes against humanity, without exception, the victims have been dehumanized in a similar way that Americans treat those convicted of a capital crime. It is a sad pattern.

So we should hoist the murderer up as a hero? There is no dehumanizing. The person took a life and dehumanized another person. Most you can't let out again because they will repeat. They are not fit to live or work in the real world.

There is no "crime against humanity" it is a way to handle those who dehumanize their fellow citizens.

Most Americans probably agree with you.

That's why we have it. Since on the subject, here is a murder in my area. Let me know what you think we should do with this animal:

Multiple Murder Suspect

 

[Eloy]

You are wrong to dehumanize any person. When you start doing that, to have taken the step in the road to state murder.

"You are wrong to dehumanize any person"

Nope, they chose to dehumanize themselves by committing the atrocity(s) they did. It's as simple as that.

Wherever you see crimes against humanity, without exception, the victims have been dehumanized in a similar way that Americans treat those convicted of a capital crime. It is a sad pattern.

So we should hoist the murderer up as a hero? There is no dehumanizing. The person took a life and dehumanized another person. Most you can't let out again because they will repeat. They are not fit to live or work in the real world.

There is no "crime against humanity" it is a way to handle those who dehumanize their fellow citizens.

Most Americans probably agree with you.

I don't know if they do or don't, nor does it matter. There has to be a penalty for taking another person's life. Lives are to be cherished, those that take someone else's needs to be punished and if that punishment is deemed to be death, than so be it.

Your claim that the person that has taken another's life is dehumanized is utter nonsense. So again, you have proved nothing, no crime against humanity, no dehumanizing, you proved nothing. Also the state cannot "murder" anyone in a case where someone is put to death, that is more silly stuff and emotion.

The authorities of the Third Reich would have agreed with you; after all what the state does cannot be murder in their eyes also.

 

[Papageorgio]

"You are wrong to dehumanize any person"

Nope, they chose to dehumanize themselves by committing the atrocity(s) they did. It's as simple as that.

Wherever you see crimes against humanity, without exception, the victims have been dehumanized in a similar way that Americans treat those convicted of a capital crime. It is a sad pattern.

So we should hoist the murderer up as a hero? There is no dehumanizing. The person took a life and dehumanized another person. Most you can't let out again because they will repeat. They are not fit to live or work in the real world.

There is no "crime against humanity" it is a way to handle those who dehumanize their fellow citizens.

Most Americans probably agree with you.

I don't know if they do or don't, nor does it matter. There has to be a penalty for taking another person's life. Lives are to be cherished, those that take someone else's needs to be punished and if that punishment is deemed to be death, than so be it.

Your claim that the person that has taken another's life is dehumanized is utter nonsense. So again, you have proved nothing, no crime against humanity, no dehumanizing, you proved nothing. Also the state cannot "murder" anyone in a case where someone is put to death, that is more silly stuff and emotion.

The authorities of the Third Reich would have agreed with you; after all what the state does cannot be murder in their eyes also.

Wow, didn't take you long to go to Hitler. LOL!

Not nearly the same, we don't dehumanize them and have failed to prove it. The state can't "murder" in the federal government eyes as in my example. If the death penalty is legal, then by definition it isn't murder. Just like taking an unborn baby's life is by definition is not murder. Do you have an issue taking the life of a completely innocent child, but have an issue with the taking of the life of person who has taken someone else's life? The Third Reich had no issue killing the unborn.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

"You are wrong to dehumanize any person"

Nope, they chose to dehumanize themselves by committing the atrocity(s) they did. It's as simple as that.

Wherever you see crimes against humanity, without exception, the victims have been dehumanized in a similar way that Americans treat those convicted of a capital crime. It is a sad pattern.

So we should hoist the murderer up as a hero? There is no dehumanizing. The person took a life and dehumanized another person. Most you can't let out again because they will repeat. They are not fit to live or work in the real world.

There is no "crime against humanity" it is a way to handle those who dehumanize their fellow citizens.

Most Americans probably agree with you.

I don't know if they do or don't, nor does it matter. There has to be a penalty for taking another person's life. Lives are to be cherished, those that take someone else's needs to be punished and if that punishment is deemed to be death, than so be it.

Your claim that the person that has taken another's life is dehumanized is utter nonsense. So again, you have proved nothing, no crime against humanity, no dehumanizing, you proved nothing. Also the state cannot "murder" anyone in a case where someone is put to death, that is more silly stuff and emotion.

The authorities of the Third Reich would have agreed with you; after all what the state does cannot be murder in their eyes also.

You leftists are something else. This is the same argument made by the left when a cop has to shoot a suspect and kills him.

Next thing you know, you leftists will call prison slavery or kidnapping.

 

[Eloy]

Wherever you see crimes against humanity, without exception, the victims have been dehumanized in a similar way that Americans treat those convicted of a capital crime. It is a sad pattern.

So we should hoist the murderer up as a hero? There is no dehumanizing. The person took a life and dehumanized another person. Most you can't let out again because they will repeat. They are not fit to live or work in the real world.

There is no "crime against humanity" it is a way to handle those who dehumanize their fellow citizens.

Most Americans probably agree with you.

I don't know if they do or don't, nor does it matter. There has to be a penalty for taking another person's life. Lives are to be cherished, those that take someone else's needs to be punished and if that punishment is deemed to be death, than so be it.

Your claim that the person that has taken another's life is dehumanized is utter nonsense. So again, you have proved nothing, no crime against humanity, no dehumanizing, you proved nothing. Also the state cannot "murder" anyone in a case where someone is put to death, that is more silly stuff and emotion.

The authorities of the Third Reich would have agreed with you; after all what the state does cannot be murder in their eyes also.

You leftists are something else. This is the same argument made by the left when a cop has to shoot a suspect and kills him.

Next thing you know, you leftists will call prison slavery or kidnapping.

Is shooting a "suspect" OK in America now? Golly!

 

[Papageorgio]

So we should hoist the murderer up as a hero? There is no dehumanizing. The person took a life and dehumanized another person. Most you can't let out again because they will repeat. They are not fit to live or work in the real world.

There is no "crime against humanity" it is a way to handle those who dehumanize their fellow citizens.

Most Americans probably agree with you.

I don't know if they do or don't, nor does it matter. There has to be a penalty for taking another person's life. Lives are to be cherished, those that take someone else's needs to be punished and if that punishment is deemed to be death, than so be it.

Your claim that the person that has taken another's life is dehumanized is utter nonsense. So again, you have proved nothing, no crime against humanity, no dehumanizing, you proved nothing. Also the state cannot "murder" anyone in a case where someone is put to death, that is more silly stuff and emotion.

The authorities of the Third Reich would have agreed with you; after all what the state does cannot be murder in their eyes also.

You leftists are something else. This is the same argument made by the left when a cop has to shoot a suspect and kills him.

Next thing you know, you leftists will call prison slavery or kidnapping.

Is shooting a "suspect" OK in America now? Golly!

No but a police officer defending himself is. So is killing innocent unborn babies is okay with you? However killing murders is not?

 

[Kondor3]

View attachment 135176

The fact of the matter is, is that most people on death row, belong in a place shown in the photo...
Starting at around age 15 to 18, for the rest of their lives.... or for a long time.
Based on their mental functioning, their intelligence scores, and their education and their personal background.


Why don't we do that, instead of executing people ?

Prisoners are in prison and some are facing the death penalty because they had a chance at a better life and they blew it.

The point you are trying to make is more fitting for children who are being aborted.

At last the CONVICTED felon on death row got a trial and a chance to defend themself.

Somebody with an IQ of 75 or 80 or 85, which is most people on death row, doesn't have a chance at life, just a chance of existence.

Commit a capital offense and you die.

Nature has de-selected them.

They will not be missed.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So we should hoist the murderer up as a hero? There is no dehumanizing. The person took a life and dehumanized another person. Most you can't let out again because they will repeat. They are not fit to live or work in the real world.

There is no "crime against humanity" it is a way to handle those who dehumanize their fellow citizens.

Most Americans probably agree with you.

I don't know if they do or don't, nor does it matter. There has to be a penalty for taking another person's life. Lives are to be cherished, those that take someone else's needs to be punished and if that punishment is deemed to be death, than so be it.

Your claim that the person that has taken another's life is dehumanized is utter nonsense. So again, you have proved nothing, no crime against humanity, no dehumanizing, you proved nothing. Also the state cannot "murder" anyone in a case where someone is put to death, that is more silly stuff and emotion.

The authorities of the Third Reich would have agreed with you; after all what the state does cannot be murder in their eyes also.

You leftists are something else. This is the same argument made by the left when a cop has to shoot a suspect and kills him.

Next thing you know, you leftists will call prison slavery or kidnapping.

Is shooting a "suspect" OK in America now? Golly!

Yes it is, it's called self-defense. In our country, not only do police officers have that legal right, but so do armed citizens. It's what's known as a deterrent. If a lowlife decides to car jack a motorist, he has to consider it may cost him his life. So he thinks his situation very carefully and if smart, would probably decide not to.

As a licensed armed citizen, I have the right to use deadly force if I believe I'm in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. Our police officers have the same legal right.

 

[Eloy]

Most Americans probably agree with you.

I don't know if they do or don't, nor does it matter. There has to be a penalty for taking another person's life. Lives are to be cherished, those that take someone else's needs to be punished and if that punishment is deemed to be death, than so be it.

Your claim that the person that has taken another's life is dehumanized is utter nonsense. So again, you have proved nothing, no crime against humanity, no dehumanizing, you proved nothing. Also the state cannot "murder" anyone in a case where someone is put to death, that is more silly stuff and emotion.

The authorities of the Third Reich would have agreed with you; after all what the state does cannot be murder in their eyes also.

You leftists are something else. This is the same argument made by the left when a cop has to shoot a suspect and kills him.

Next thing you know, you leftists will call prison slavery or kidnapping.

Is shooting a "suspect" OK in America now? Golly!

Yes it is, it's called self-defense. In our country, not only do police officers have that legal right, but so do armed citizens. It's what's known as a deterrent. If a lowlife decides to car jack a motorist, he has to consider it may cost him his life. So he thinks his situation very carefully and if smart, would probably decide not to.

As a licensed armed citizen, I have the right to use deadly force if I believe I'm in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. Our police officers have the same legal right.

Next I will be told that a person stopped for a tail light that is not working can be shot by a policemen in America. I would find that hard to believe.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't know if they do or don't, nor does it matter. There has to be a penalty for taking another person's life. Lives are to be cherished, those that take someone else's needs to be punished and if that punishment is deemed to be death, than so be it.

Your claim that the person that has taken another's life is dehumanized is utter nonsense. So again, you have proved nothing, no crime against humanity, no dehumanizing, you proved nothing. Also the state cannot "murder" anyone in a case where someone is put to death, that is more silly stuff and emotion.

The authorities of the Third Reich would have agreed with you; after all what the state does cannot be murder in their eyes also.

You leftists are something else. This is the same argument made by the left when a cop has to shoot a suspect and kills him.

Next thing you know, you leftists will call prison slavery or kidnapping.

Is shooting a "suspect" OK in America now? Golly!

Yes it is, it's called self-defense. In our country, not only do police officers have that legal right, but so do armed citizens. It's what's known as a deterrent. If a lowlife decides to car jack a motorist, he has to consider it may cost him his life. So he thinks his situation very carefully and if smart, would probably decide not to.

As a licensed armed citizen, I have the right to use deadly force if I believe I'm in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. Our police officers have the same legal right.

Next I will be told that a person stopped for a tail light that is not working can be shot by a policemen in America. I would find that hard to believe.

Actually he can if the motorist makes a threatening move on the cop. If you do exactly as the officer tells you, nothing will happen. But liberals are very slow. Some just can't understand that the way to avoid getting shot by a cop is just do as he says, and they end up getting shot or killed as a result of it.

 

[Kondor3]

...Next I will be told that a person stopped for a tail light that is not working can be shot by a policemen in America. I would find that hard to believe.

There's an easy fix for that...

When pulled-over or otherwise halted by a law enforcement officer...

1. shut-the-phukk up

2. keep your hands where the officer can see them

3. obey all commands immediately

That wasn't so difficult now, was it?

 

[Eloy]

The authorities of the Third Reich would have agreed with you; after all what the state does cannot be murder in their eyes also.

You leftists are something else. This is the same argument made by the left when a cop has to shoot a suspect and kills him.

Next thing you know, you leftists will call prison slavery or kidnapping.

Is shooting a "suspect" OK in America now? Golly!

Yes it is, it's called self-defense. In our country, not only do police officers have that legal right, but so do armed citizens. It's what's known as a deterrent. If a lowlife decides to car jack a motorist, he has to consider it may cost him his life. So he thinks his situation very carefully and if smart, would probably decide not to.

As a licensed armed citizen, I have the right to use deadly force if I believe I'm in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. Our police officers have the same legal right.

Next I will be told that a person stopped for a tail light that is not working can be shot by a policemen in America. I would find that hard to believe.

Actually he can if the motorist makes a threatening move on the cop. If you do exactly as the officer tells you, nothing will happen. But liberals are very slow. Some just can't understand that the way to avoid getting shot by a cop is just do as he says, and they end up getting shot or killed as a result of it.

But what if the "suspect" is Black? What then? We get enough news from the USA to be able to form an informed opinion.