Author Topic: WTfG New Jersey - Life - Not Death (Read 2295 times)

Rino · « **Reply #75 on:** December 18, 2007, 02:13:03 PM »

See Rule #4

Yeager · « **Reply #76 on:** December 18, 2007, 02:27:24 PM »

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/crime/story/209294.html

Taveras was convicted of manslaughter in the brutal stabbing death of his mother. Apparently stabbing another human being forty times with a steak knife does not rate as highly as murder in any degree, go figure.

In my book, a man stabs another human being to death in that manner, as Tavares did with his mother, should at a bare minimum, never see a free day for the rest of his life. I dont know what the hell rated it down to manslaughter but people who knew the guy pleaded with officials not to let him go. The judge overruled their objections and tavares went fourth and murdered again in brutal fashion furthering my belief in executions being used to prevent future murders.

He should have been executed for causing the brutal death of another human being (40 blows with a knife?......thats extenuating, come on!).

Maverick · « **Reply #77 on:** December 18, 2007, 02:31:20 PM »

Hie second victims had not committed any crimes at all, yet he executed them.

Yeager · « **Reply #78 on:** December 18, 2007, 02:39:53 PM »

Essentially your post makes about as much sense as pointing out that if the guy had died of a heart attack he wouldn't have killed again. Pointless.
====
Pointless? By executing a murderer we are eliminating that murderer from ever murdering again. I know it goes against your reasoning and you wont accept the fact that everytime a convicted killer kills again, that death could have been prevented by executing the murderer after his first murder. And oh yeah, a heart attack would have done the same thing but Im not going to use your rational and say we should let heart attacks be our primary defense against preventing murderers from murdering again.

Even as a liberal defense against executions, the heart attack defense is really lame

Thrawn · « **Reply #79 on:** December 18, 2007, 03:21:52 PM »

Murderers kill people, therefore it's okay if the state does?

Wow, I can't wait to explain to my daughter how murderers should be our benchmark for morality...right up there with the terrorists that torture people. Aim for the moon, honey, aim for the moon!

straffo · « **Reply #80 on:** December 18, 2007, 03:26:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort

nice curve

I've one too :

this bbs need an upgrade !

DYNAMITE · « **Reply #81 on:** December 18, 2007, 03:54:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort

Rip... what is "The Bureau of Criminal Justice" ? I can't find the source. I've found the Bureau of Justice, which is a Federal agency, but that's different than the bureau of criminal justice listed on the chart...

Just curious-

midnight Target · « **Reply #82 on:** December 18, 2007, 03:54:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Yeager
Essentially your post makes about as much sense as pointing out that if the guy had died of a heart attack he wouldn't have killed again. Pointless.
====
Pointless? By executing a murderer we are eliminating that murderer from ever murdering again. I know it goes against your reasoning and you wont accept the fact that everytime a convicted killer kills again, that death could have been prevented by executing the murderer after his first murder. And oh yeah, a heart attack would have done the same thing but Im not going to use your rational and say we should let heart attacks be our primary defense against preventing murderers from murdering again.

Even as a liberal defense against executions, the heart attack defense is really lame

Come on Yeager, you're smarter than that. I didn't give a "heart attack" defense of anything. It was a comparison to the pointlessness of your story. Are you saying that we should execute everyone who is convicted of manslaughter now? I realize the printed word can be inexact sometimes, but really? Heart attack defense? By attacking the "heart attack defense" you are in essence attacking your story as well... sheesh.

Yeager · « **Reply #83 on:** December 18, 2007, 04:10:15 PM »

back to basics, just for the point of continuing the thread: we should execute people who under extenuating circumstances of cruelty murder others in cold blood during felonious behavior or to engage in sexual assaults, people who murder for pleasure, or people who murder children.

midnight Target · « **Reply #84 on:** December 18, 2007, 04:18:36 PM »

Still not a deterrent.

basically.

Yeager · « **Reply #85 on:** December 18, 2007, 04:22:31 PM »

Murderers kill people, therefore it's okay if the state does?
====
In states where the death penalty is law the simple answer is yes.

I see it for what it is, the state acting in defense of its citizens. Murderers who are dead are no longer a threat.

Yeager · « **Reply #86 on:** December 18, 2007, 04:24:53 PM »

I dont think you can deter murderers MT. I have never bought into the theory of deterrence by death with regards to singular vicious human beings commiting murder. They are more interested in the moment that they murder than of any consequence. Execution rids us all of the murderer and guarantees that any particular murderer will never murder again. To me thats worth the price.

lazs2 · « **Reply #87 on:** December 19, 2007, 08:40:27 AM »

sorry mt.. the numbers seem to indicate that it is a deterrent. The numbers really don't exist in big enough of a sampling to get a real firm yes or no but.. they do seem to indicate that the death penalty is a deterrent... they certainly don't indicate the other way.

one thing is certain.. don't even need a graph.. no one executed has ever committed another murder.

lazs

cpxxx · « **Reply #88 on:** December 19, 2007, 09:36:17 AM »

The reality is that killing someone as punishment really makes you no better than they are. Worse still, as often as not, execution is carried out in the most cold blooded and gruesome way.

It clearly isn't a deterrance. If it was there would be few murders in States where the killing of prisoners is allowed.

Many people are half savage barbarians to this day even in so called civilised countries. That trait should not be encouraged. Execution is simply revenge not punishment.

Certain murderers should never be released and held in conditions that remind them daily of the horror of their crime. 40 years of hell on earth is much better punishment than death.

Jackal1 · « **Reply #89 on:** December 19, 2007, 09:45:40 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by cpxxx
Certain murderers should never be released and held in conditions that remind them daily of the horror of their crime. 40 years of hell on earth is much better punishment than death.

Phhhfffftttttt. I don`t really cherish the thought of the costs per day to keep some vermin alive that doesn`t deserve to breathe that has wiped out someone`s life for no reason.
Whackem and stackem.