DC Sniper

Doing to someone what he did wrong to show him it was wrong=wrong.
You don't hit your kid to show him hitting people is wrong. That's the exact opposite of what you want to accomplish. Yes in prison they cost pomegranateheaps of taxpayer dollars, but how do you think (almost) every other bleeding country of the world does it? Just don't use so much pineappleing oil and stop pineappleing starting wars everywhere and poking your nose where it shouldn't be. You'd have money to spare even after not killing people but making them do community service/forced menial labor etc.

Again, proving a point by preforming the said wrong action yourself makes the whole thing rediculous.

An eye for an eye is litterally the most shortsighted reasoning anyone could have, you'd think those millions of years of evolution would have gotten us past the Dark ages. I don't like reading stuff, but pomegranate people, go read a book or two, get educated, stop reasoning like animals, we're people for god's sake.

No, I don't believe in god, just a lot of expressions have some of the trinity weaved into them. The remark of letting god handle them is bullcrap, we all know that. There is no god. That doesn't mean we can do whatever the pineapple we want, though. We made rules as people, there are human pineappleing rights. You are not allowed to steal someone else's life. Period. No exceptions.

I love how you compare murderers to hitting children and throw in some America-hatin' just for the hell of it. Sorry, I have trouble taking you seriously.

No, I don't believe in god, just a lot of expressions have some of the trinity weaved into them. The remark of letting god handle them is bullcrap, we all know that. There is no god. That doesn't mean we can do whatever the pineapple we want, though. We made rules as people, there are human pineappleing rights. You are not allowed to steal someone else's life. Period. No exceptions.

Uh, last time I checked, there was no rules made for exceptions. Where does it say we can't take someone's life with no exceptions?

They killed people for sport, they're practically asking to be killed.

I love how you compare murderers to hitting children and throw in some America-hatin' just for the hell of it. Sorry, I have trouble taking you seriously.

Uh, last time I checked, there was on rules made for exceptions. Where does it say we can't take someone's life with no exceptions?

They killed people for sport, they're practically asking to be killed.

If there were no rules made for exceptions then how is the death penalty still being used? Where? Common fucking sense, that's where.

Lol, youthink I'm sympathizing with the killers or something? I didn't even mention them, this has nothing to do with what low-live scumbag douchbags like them do. This is about how we as society respond to it. And responding by doing the same thing they did is just NOT GOOD. You do the SAME THING THEY DO, HOW CAN YOU BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY THEN?

NB. Yes I did throw in some America hatin', even though I'm no America hater at all. But these are reasons why there is no money for a better healthcare/prison/legal system, because to much money is going to national defence (military) and oil (as far as the 2 are seperated).
I won't claim to be an expert on all of this and I'm sure there are nuances (if that's a word in English, I'm affraid not) and incompletenesses (wow im typing to fast I need to know the right words) about my remarks, but basic as it may be, these are the fundamental issues.

"But these are reasons why there is no money for a better healthcare/prison/legal system, because to much money is going to national defence (military) and oil (as far as the 2 are seperated)."

Because paying for life in prison without parole isn't taxing the prison system?

"But these are reasons why there is no money for a better healthcare/prison/legal system, because to much money is going to national defence (military) and oil (as far as the 2 are seperated)."

Because paying for life in prison without parole isn't taxing the prison system?

Err I think you didn't read my first post they replied to. I already said it does, but I'd rather pay tax money to keep people in prison thatn pay money to fight wars somewhere or to have people electrocuted, wouldn't you?

If there were no rules made for exceptions then how is the death penalty still being used? Where? Common pineappleing sense, that's where.

Lol, youthink I'm sympathizing with the killers or something? I didn't even mention them, this has nothing to do with what low-live scumbag douchbags like them do. This is about how we as society respond to it. And responding by doing the same thing they did is just NOT GOOD. You do the SAME THING THEY DO, HOW CAN YOU BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY THEN?

NB. Yes I did throw in some America hatin', even though I'm no America hater at all. But these are reasons why there is no money for a better healthcare/prison/legal system, because to much money is going to national defence (military) and oil (as far as the 2 are seperated).
I won't claim to be an expert on all of this and I'm sure there are nuances (if that's a word in English, I'm affraid not) and incompletenesses (wow im typing to fast I need to know the right words) about my remarks, but basic as it may be, these are the fundamental issues.

"Common sense: a collection of prejudices accumulated by age 18." -- Albert Einstein.

Your whole argument, (and previous argument,) hinges on what you see as "common sense." Unfortunately irl arguments require a bit more than the assertion of your own beliefs, (namely logic to back up your claims,) and you have given nearly none of that.

The claim that killing a criminal in the process of the death penalty is the SAME thing as the criminal murdering an innocent is completely illogical. The death penalty is death to the criminal in retaliation to his murder, not murder in retaliation to NOTHING. It can be argued that the death penalty is unfit for civilized society, but that's still not the same as claiming that the government is as bad as the murderer in putting him to death. Also liberals are not saying there is no money for health care, etc., becuase of expenditures on the military. I know this because they JUST PUT OUT a massive healthcare bill; so according to the liberals the money is there -- they wouldn't do all this backroom buttfuucking to put out a huge bill they don't have money for. As for expenditures on oil, that is private industry, not government spending, so it is completely irrelevant to what you're talking about. Your claims are very poorly put together, and completely illogical. Again, it is "common sense" to you, but to anybody with any shred of actual sense, they are anything but.

So, I am sorry, I cannot discuss/argue anything with you. It's not really feasible for two people to talk where one person says "this is what I believe, and this is why," and the other person says "this is what I believe, explaining why I believe it is not necessary."

If evidence is found that exculpates a prisoner, we let them go. What possible recourse is there for wrongfully executed person?

Some people believe that leaving a murderer rot in prison is not enough, specially most of the families that lost a loved one thanks to said murderer.

Plus, the same family's taxes are paying that murderer's food and crap on prison, knowing that, how would you feel about it?

If you said you didn't care about it, I would call bullsh'it, yeah maybe you haven't experienced what is to lose someone you care about, I wish you don't, I haven't either, but I'm sure as hell I would be angry, frustrated and sad about it.

Saying that you wish that the murderer died for what he did isn't lack of education as you say zotten, or whatever you meant by "go read a book or two" that exact feeling is what separates us from animals, in fact, the only animal in the whole ecuation would be the murderer himself, acting by his basic instincts, I mean after all, what drives a killer to kill people besides the basic instinct of hunting his prey?

If evidence is found that exculpates a prisoner, we let them go. What possible recourse is there for wrongfully executed person?

Thats another problem, and has to do mostly with the legal system, you can't really have a perfect system without something failing, history has proven it many times, and i doubt that there will be a day with a perfect legal system that gives 100% accurate err.. dammit i forgot the word, but you get what i mean...

I mean after all, what drives a killer to kill people besides the basic instinct of hunting his prey?

actually usually animals dont kill other animals of their same specie for pomegranates and giggles like we humans do. even when fighting over females or territory death is very rare and most likely caused by infected wounds than being killed during the fight itself.

although some monkeys and lions do commit infanticide when taking over a defeated male pack it is just to get the females to ovulate and to cut the other male line since he is hte new boss. but killing their own for the sake of killing and with no end usually does not happen.

bottom line, we humans are speshul little critters, please dont put down animals on the same level as those things that murder humans for the fun in it.

oh and to ZottenKerel, one word for you. WAR

If evidence is found that exculpates a prisoner, we let them go. What possible recourse is there for wrongfully executed person?

You're using the circular reasoning fallacy. You are restating essentially the same point over and over as if it were a new argument. The answer to each time you do this remains the same: while there are instances where a wrongfully convicted person is found to have been innocent and let go, these numbers are VERY LOW. They are low to the point where it would be foolish to base criminal justice policy based on these exceptions, and not the fact that the vast majority of accused cons ARE guilty. Imperfect human beings cannot build a perfect society, you cannot expect a criminal justice system that NEVER EVER convicts an innocent person. The media blows these "wrongful convictions" out of proportion, but then that same media after crime severely decreased after the year 2000 increased coverage of existing crime by 400%, creating a national belief that there is a crime wave. Media entities want bloody, sensationalist stories, not to give you "unbiased" information. Are you seriously buying this bullshiit just because they show it in the papers and on TV?

This is the last time I will respond to this type of comment from you because seriously, I am getting sick of repeating myself.

"Common sense: a collection of prejudices accumulated by age 18." -- Albert Einstein.

Your whole argument, (and previous argument,) hinges on what you see as "common sense." Unfortunately irl arguments require a bit more than the assertion of your own beliefs, (namely logic to back up your claims,) and you have given nearly none of that.

The claim that killing a criminal in the process of the death penalty is the SAME thing as the criminal murdering an innocent is completely illogical. The death penalty is death to the criminal in retaliation to his murder, not murder in retaliation to NOTHING. It can be argued that the death penalty is unfit for civilized society, but that's still not the same as claiming that the government is as bad as the murderer in putting him to death. Also liberals are not saying there is no money for health care, etc., becuase of expenditures on the military. I know this because they JUST PUT OUT a massive healthcare bill; so according to the liberals the money is there -- they wouldn't do all this backroom buttfuucking to put out a huge bill they don't have money for. As for expenditures on oil, that is private industry, not government spending, so it is completely irrelevant to what you're talking about. Your claims are very poorly put together, and completely illogical. Again, it is "common sense" to you, but to anybody with any shred of actual sense, they are anything but.

So, I am sorry, I cannot discuss/argue anything with you. It's not really feasible for two people to talk where one person says "this is what I believe, and this is why," and the other person says "this is what I believe, explaining why I believe it is not necessary."

I'm not debating the fact that you're smart, I'm debating the fact that you chose not to read what you know I mean, because I don't literally voice it, or in this case, write it down.

Look at what I bolded. To me there are no other factors to that point. Killing=murder, without getting into technical ,circumstantial or semantic details. Killing is killing, saying it is ok because the person getting killed has already killed other people and therefore the befitting punishment by law is killing them inreturn, doesn't make it any more or less, the ending of a life. (again some psycho torturing people isn't the exact same thing as giving a lethal injection, but it is still ending a life as a result).
On the ground of ending a life it is the same, of course the state doesn't just put him up to a wall in the centre of town and blow his brains out, of course not. People who assault others (example) get thrown in jail. They don't get thrown into a group of people who can just beat them up. Which would be an eye for an eye, no? Sure they get treated roughly, but that is because they committed a crime against humanity, or, in most cases, society.

About that health care bill, again I'm not super informed about those details, since I'm not American, but I didn't mean you have to stop having an army so you can give healthcare. What I meant is there has to be a healthier balance between the two. Sure the money is there, but it will be at the cost of something else, money has to come from somewhere. If there would be less military spending, there would be more left for, say, healthcare. That's not an opinion, that's just fact.

About the oil, I think you're forgetting the incredible influence a government can have on the use of resources. Think about advertising campaigns, added taxes, etcetc. A state can reduce the oil use by a lot, or gain a lot of money trying to do so (more tax=more income for state).

I'm sorry if my arguments seem null to you, but I'm just commenting on the basics of things, stuff that you can't actually argue all that much with, most of it is just stating facts that people seem to overlook for some reason.

Common sense is indeed affected by the values, laws and society in general which you grow up in, making it the most differentiated of all common things. This does not take away the fact that seeing what I'm saying is more or less purely stating fact, should be part of this 'common' sense. Let's not forget Albert Einstein flunked math in highschool.

legal system that gives 100% accurate err.. dammit i forgot the word, but you get what i mean...

efficiency?

actually usually animals dont kill other animals of their same specie for pomegranates and giggles like we humans do. even when fighting over females or territory death is very rare and most likely caused by infected wounds than being killed during the fight itself.

although some monkeys and lions do commit infanticide when taking over a defeated male pack it is just to get the females to ovulate and to cut the other male line since he is hte new boss. but killing their own for the sake of killing and with no end usually does not happen.

bottom line, we humans are speshul little critters, please dont put down animals on the same level as those things that murder humans for the fun in it.

oh and to ZottenKerel, one word for you. WAR

Thanks, this is what i meant.

@Zotten: Not efficiency... dammit, this pomegranate happens when i don't write enough english >_>

a 100% fair trial with accurate err.. GOD DAMMIT

You're using the circular reasoning fallacy. You are restating essentially the same point over and over as if it were a new argument. The answer to each time you do this remains the same: while there are instances where a wrongfully convicted person is found to have been innocent and let go, these numbers are VERY LOW. They are low to the point where it would be foolish to base criminal justice policy based on these exceptions, and not the fact that the vast majority of accused cons ARE guilty. Imperfect human beings cannot build a perfect society, you cannot expect a criminal justice system that NEVER EVER convicts an innocent person. The media blows these "wrongful convictions" out of proportion, but then that same media after crime severely decreased after the year 2000 increased coverage of existing crime by 400%, creating a national belief that there is a crime wave. Media entities want bloody, sensationalist stories, not to give you "unbiased" information. Are you seriously buying this bullshiit just because they show it in the papers and on TV?

This is the last time I will respond to this type of comment from you because seriously, I am getting sick of repeating myself.

I'm pretty sure that, rather than meaning the system has flaws whereas others don't (which you responded to every system will have flaws, and you're absolutely right saying so) he means that flaws in the system without death penalty can be undone (except for the moral suffering etc ofcourse) as opposed to execution of death penalty which can't be undone.

Copying your statement that all systems have flaws because humans are imperfect beings (again, completely right), knowing this isn't it very dangerous to have a decision so final as to sentencing someone to death in that very imperfect system?
If even a single person gets wrongfully executed, you would sign it off as the statistical chance of the imperfect system actually being imperfect, I presume. But is that really moral? Is it ok to say an innocent person dying for the greater good is worth the getting rid of all the other scumbags?

That is where the dilemma for [name] lies, not that systems have flaws, I'm sure he's not debating that. Removing the death penalty from this system would 100% rule out killing an innocent person because of the system, isn't that great??
If you think about it, it's really the easy way out to say 'he doesn't fit in society and we can't help him, so we'll just get rid of him'. Trying to understand what happened and tryign to re-integrate this person into society is what this, as you perfectly put it, civilized society, should be capable of.
Again almost every other country in the world can do it, why can't the great America?

Thanks, this is what i meant.

@Zotten: Not efficiency... dammit, this pomegranate happens when i don't write enough english >_>

a 100% fair trial with accurate err.. GOD DAMMIT

Oh you meant the word after accurate.. do you just mean accurate sentence/outcome/etc? If not I don't know anymore, lol.

personally i wish we had the death penalty her ein the DR. so many useless ppl walk out after a few years, because well, we also dont have life in jail without parole... i wish we had laws sometimes

I'm not debating the fact that you're smart, I'm debating the fact that you chose not to read what you know I mean, because I don't literally voice it, or in this case, write it down.

Look at what I bolded. To me there are no other factors to that point. Killing=murder, without getting into technical ,circumstantial or semantic details. Killing is killing, saying it is ok because the person getting killed has already killed other people and therefore the befitting punishment by law is killing them inreturn, doesn't make it any more or less, the ending of a life. (again some psycho torturing people isn't the exact same thing as giving a lethal injection, but it is still ending a life as a result).
On the ground of ending a life it is the same, of course the state doesn't just put him up to a wall in the centre of town and blow his brains out, of course not. People who assault others (example) get thrown in jail. They don't get thrown into a group of people who can just beat them up. Which would be an eye for an eye, no? Sure they get treated roughly, but that is because they committed a crime against humanity, or, in most cases, society.

I pick my language carefully. Killing and murder are NOT the same thing. They may be the same thing if you're not familiar iwth definitions, but in fact they are different.

For example, you have a man that swerved to avoid an incoming car that got into his lane, he hits a pedestrian and kills him. You have another man that is a Soldier in the US Army, and his unit gets in a firefight with armed Al Qaeda terrorists, and the US Soldier kills a terrorist with his M-16. You have a 87 year old Korean grandmaster in Tae Kwon Do (his limbs are certified as lethal weapons by law,) that is mistaken for a patsy by a robber, who comes at him with a knife, the grandmaster performs a reverse roundhouse to the assailant's skull, killing him instantly. You have a bodyguard for President Obama that retaliates against a would-be assassin that's aiming for hte President's head, and kills him instantly. Finally, you have a man that is cheating on his wife, and he decides to murder his wife and make it look like a domestic accident so he doesn't have to split the cost of his house with her in divorcing her.

All four instances are a case of a human being killing another human being. In law, the first instance can be argued to be manslaughter, (although the man would have a defense in court,) the third is textbook self-defense, the second and fourth are fully legitimate under the law and incur no penalties under ANY nation's laws, and the fourth is first degree murder. Only the fourth person is a murderer, the rest of these people are not,though they all killed a person.

About that health care bill, again I'm not super informed about those details, since I'm not American, but I didn't mean you have to stop having an army so you can give healthcare. What I meant is there has to be a healthier balance between the two. Sure the money is there, but it will be at the cost of something else, money has to come from somewhere. If there would be less military spending, there would be more left for, say, healthcare. That's not an opinion, that's just fact.

It's not a fact. I am not for the stuff that the Democrats are doing, but saying that the "right" way to fund their policy is to cut the military spending DURING A WAR is just fruity. There is a whole heap of crap the government spends on, and often they just choose to increase taxes. I don't know why you focused on the military of all things.

About the oil, I think you're forgetting the incredible influence a government can have on the use of resources. Think about advertising campaigns, added taxes, etcetc. A state can reduce the oil use by a lot, or gain a lot of money trying to do so (more tax=more income for state).

Just because oil companies pay campaign contributions and taxes doesn't mean that they are somehow controlled by the government. There are other huge and malicious entities, especially the tobacco companies, which unlike the oil companies serve literally no purpose. Private industry =/= government.

ed by the values, laws and society in general which you grow up in, making it the most differentiated of all common things. This does not take away the fact that seeing what I'm saying is more or less purely stating fact, should be part of this 'common' sense. Let's not forget Albert Einstein flunked math in highschool.

Albert Einstein didn't flunk math, he was so bored by the subject matter that he didn't bother. He is the greatest scientist in history, I think saying he was incapable of doing such stuff is a bit weak. Einstein's teacher told his parents taht Einstein was a retard. Common sense to me is different than what common sense is to you. The difference is, I refuse to accept things as common sense unless there's a hell of a lot of logic and reasoning behind it, and many people don't bother going that far. They just go to people with similar thinking and it's true because they collectively believe it, not because there's any real truth to it.

I pick my language carefully. Killing and murder are NOT the same thing. They may be the same thing if you're not familiar iwth definitions, but in fact they are different.

There was no need for all those examples, hell I didn't even read them, since you obviously didn't read my post either. I said I didn't want to get into the semantic difference between killing and murder because I know they are different, that's why at the end of the paragraph I reduced it to 'ending a life'.

It's not a fact. I am not for the stuff that the Democrats are doing, but saying that the "right" way to fund their policy is to cut the military spending DURING A WAR is just fruity. There is a whole heap of crap the government spends on, and often they just choose to increase taxes. I don't know why you focused on the military of all things.

Yes it is a fact.. If you don't spend mone on one place you can spend it somewhere else, how can you deny that simple fact? Obviously I picked the military 'cus the US has, even relative to the number of inhabitants the biggest military spending in the world.

Just because oil companies pay campaign contributions and taxes doesn't mean that they are somehow controlled by the government. There are other huge and malicious entities, especially the tobacco companies, which unlike the oil companies serve literally no purpose. Private industry =/= government.

I was hoping I didn't have to write this all down for you, but since you're so keen on shooting down every sentence I write, I guess I have no choice. The government can tax cars. More polluting/nature unfriendly cars=higher taxes. Discourages use of hummers ETC=>less oil use in cars. I'm 100% sure you could've figured this out on your own since you're clearly intelligent, yet you make me type this out...

Albert Einstein didn't flunk math, he was so bored by the subject matter that he didn't bother. He is the greatest scientist in history, I think saying he was incapable of doing such stuff is a bit weak. Einstein's teacher told his parents taht Einstein was a retard. Common sense to me is different than what common sense is to you. The difference is, I refuse to accept things as common sense unless there's a hell of a lot of logic and reasoning behind it, and many people don't bother going that far. They just go to people with similar thinking and it's true because they collectively believe it, not because there's any real truth to it.

I have a high IQ and I was bored all the way through elementery-middle-highschool too, doing things that were not suited to my persona, teachers wanted to hold me back grades, the works. But that doesn't change the fact that I flunked several classes, lol. To the system not getting ur grade=flunking, they don't care if you're bored. Hey, you got him into this, not me. =P

Believing something just because everyone else does is retarded. Same goes for doing something for said reason.

So it's okay to kill off victims of an imperfect legal system because our society's thirst for blood is that great.

Gotcha.

Oh, and "They deserve to die because they were convicted and they were convicted because they deserved to die" isn't circular reasoning?

I could argue with you guys, or I could go and have a good time somewhere else. I am gonna go have a good time. I think all that needs to be said here HAS been said, and I also think you're continuing htis out of stubbornness, (or worse,) but whatever.