Ahhh.....such progressive thought. You would be happy to know who else agrees with your ideas on justice (please note the presence of EVERY country from the "Axis of Evil"): AFGHANISTAN LESOTHO ALGERIA LIBERIA ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA LIBYA ARMENIA MALAWI BAHAMAS MALAYSIA BAHRAIN MAURITANIA BANGLADESH MONGOLIA BARBADOS MOROCCO BELARUS MYANMAR BELIZE NIGERIA BENIN NORTH KOREA BOTSWANA OMAN BURUNDI PAKISTAN CAMEROON PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY CHAD PHILIPPINES CHINA QATAR COMOROS RWANDA CONGO SAINT CHRISTOPHER & NEVIS CUBA SAINT LUCIA EGYPT SAUDI ARABIA EQUATORIAL GUINEA SIERRA LEONE ERITREA SINGAPORE ETHIOPIA SOMALIA GABON SOUTH KOREA GHANA SUDAN GUATEMALA SWAZILAND GUINEA SYRIA GUYANA TAIWAN INDIA TAJIKISTAN INDONESIA TANZANIA IRAN THAILAND IRAQ TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO JAMAICA TUNISIA JAPAN UGANDA JORDAN UNITED ARAB EMIRATES KAZAKSTAN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA KENYA UZBEKISTAN KUWAIT VIETNAM KYRGYZSTAN YEMEN LAOS ZAMBIA LEBANON ZIMBABWE
Notably conspicuous by their absence from this list are Saddam Hussein's partners in corruption: France, Germany and Russia. What's the relevance of my comment to this thread, you may ask? About the same as yours. I don't think we want to be like France, Germany or Russia, either, do we? The point is, we're talking about OUR country, OUR system of justice...not anybody else's. Therefore, bringing anybody else into the discussion is just making a false argument.
Sure we don't want to be like France, Russia and Germany in some respects, but your argument is asinine. Just because these countries have a shady foreign policy doesn't mean that their ideas of justice fall into the same category. The countries in my list are the "who's who" of human rights violators. The countries in your list are developed (Russia is arguable) nations. The countries in my list, with the glaring exception of Japan, have societies that seem to be stuck in a dark age mentality. We do want to be our own country and make our own laws, but we are also appalled at the manner in which other countries carry out their justice. You always hear about the Taliban would drive into stadiums during soccer games and force family members to execute other family members for things such as adultery. They were in THEIR country with THEIR system of justice. That doesn't make it right. The only "false argument" hear is yours. You're grasping straws.
We don't take them out back and shoot them immediately after the verdict is rendered. Our system has a plethora of built in safeguards (i.e., automatic appeals) to ensure that the defendant has been given the full benefit of due process. Innocent men are not being executed anymore with the advent of DNA technology. Just because we execute 17 year old murderers is not a sufficient basis for comparison to the "axis of evil". I realize that Russell Hale's crime was not a capital offense but to illustrate my point, if he had been executed, Judge Lefkow's husband and mother would be alive today. While your heart bleeds for the criminals, mine bleeds for the victims. Nothing cruel and unusual about that.
who cares. if the only people that agree with capital punishment are hitler and satan, it is still a good idea. why not argue the merits instead of playing guilt by association?
I already addressed your bullsh1t argument on the "time" line and middle ages argument. See previous post. :dis: Time period in history has nothing to do with the civility of a nation. hear = here. One could say your argument is also grasping at straws.
I agree with TigerLaw, We are not some borderline third world country. We are United States of America. Even if we have a president that other countries laugh at, we still lead the free world........ I don't care for the death penalty because it's too easy on the convicted criminals/murderers. I say torture the bastards for a couple years, then kill them.....
What really amazes me about the whole thing is how conservatives put so much emphasis on religious values, and yet are all for selling tickets to flip the switch (hyperbole, for JSF Racing). Bible says you shouldn't kill (doesn't mention exceptions). How exactly do any of you who are Christians reconcile this apparent contradiction?
if the christians do not mind, i will help out with that one. 1. eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. so sayeth the bible. 2. you could interpret the "shalt not kill" as "shalt not kill the innocent", which makes perfect sense to me. if you take it too literally, you would not even be killing chickens or trees. for all we know, original meaning is "thou shalt not murder", which implies that you are allowed to kill, but not murder (meaning killing is sometimes justified, which is obvious).
I don't care how old they are or what their mental capacity is. If they kill someone. Kill them in the exact same manner in which they killed their victim. We're wasting too much tax dollars on room and board for them. I'd rather them waste my tax money on $2000 hammers.
