Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

White supremacist executed

Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 10:06:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
"HUNTSVILLE, Texas (AP) — A white supremacist gang member has been executed in Texas for dragging a black man to death behind a pickup truck. There were no last-day appeals to try to spare the life of Lawrence Russell Brewer. A second man convicted in the case faces execution. A third is serving a life sentence."

http://www.9and10news.com...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 10:20:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Do you post this to imply hypocrisy?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 11:01:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Not that I feel any sympathy for him, but the large amount of money spent on each state execution could be put to better use.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 11:12:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 11:01:39 AM, Kinesis wrote:
Not that I feel any sympathy for him, but the large amount of money spent on each state execution could be put to better use.

Execution costs very little money, especially compared to a prison sentence.

What costs money is trials, i.e., insuring justice.

Since if you put someone in prison for life you're still taking their life away, it's DEFINITELY NOT A GOOD THING that you're cutting corners on trials there-- it means you're more likely to convict an innocent.

The death penalty-- saving innocent lives from the State.

(Contrariwise, if the increase in trial costs has nothing to do with avoiding convicting an innocent, then the increase in trial costs can be done away with.)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 11:45:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
It isn't that simple, R_R. There are expenses that are specific to the death penalty that aren't incurred when the death penalty is removed as an option - for example, jury selection takes much longer because they have to be screened for political views on the death penalty to make sure they won't vote for or against the death penalty on principle, and the sentencing phase takes much longer because in death penalty trials the defendant is allowed to present all kinds of information as mitigating factors to force a more lenient sentence. Capital punishment is FAR more expensive than life sentencing, and it isn't politically feasible to cut costs with the regards to the death penalty in any case (especially since Georgia may well have just executed an innocent man).

Not that the main reason I'm against the death penalty is cost in any case, but it's significant.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 11:49:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 11:45:14 AM, Kinesis wrote:
It isn't that simple, R_R. There are expenses that are specific to the death penalty that aren't incurred when the death penalty is removed as an option - for example, jury selection takes much longer because they have to be screened for political views on the death penalty to make sure they won't vote for or against the death penalty on principle

Jury are screened anyway, so adding an extra question into the screening will not take much additional resources.

and the sentencing phase takes much longer because in death penalty trials the defendant is allowed to present all kinds of information as mitigating factors to force a more lenient sentence.

1) How is that different than against standard life sentences?

2) Why should that evidence be not be allowed in life sentence trials?

Capital punishment is FAR more expensive than life sentencing, and it isn't politically feasible to cut costs with the regards to the death penalty in any case (especially since Georgia may well have just executed an innocent man).

Not that the main reason I'm against the death penalty is cost in any case, but it's significant.

It doesn't have to be more expensive, it is chosen to be more expensive.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 11:59:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 11:49:29 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Jury are screened anyway, so adding an extra question into the screening will not take much additional resources.

They're screening/questioned far more extensively than trials where execution is taken off the table, which takes much more time, which costs a hell of a lot of money during a trial. Perhaps it could be done away with or reduced - but that isn't politically feasible.

and the sentencing phase takes much longer because in death penalty trials the defendant is allowed to present all kinds of information as mitigating factors to force a more lenient sentence.

1) How is that different than against standard life sentences?

Th death penalty is irreversible - they allow defendants more time to present information to defend themselves.

2) Why should that evidence be not be allowed in life sentence trials?

See above.

Not that the main reason I'm against the death penalty is cost in any case, but it's significant.

It doesn't have to be more expensive, it is chosen to be more expensive.

For good reasons - and politically essential reasons as well.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 12:09:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 11:45:14 AM, Kinesis wrote:
It isn't that simple, R_R. There are expenses that are specific to the death penalty that aren't incurred when the death penalty is removed as an option - for example, jury selection takes much longer because they have to be screened for political views on the death penalty to make sure they won't vote for or against the death penalty on principle
That does not sound expensive.

and the sentencing phase takes much longer because in death penalty trials the defendant is allowed to present all kinds of information as mitigating factors to force a more lenient sentence.
Either mitigating factors should be permitted in all trials or in none.

and it isn't politically feasible to cut costs with the regards to the death penalty in any case (especially since Georgia may well have just executed an innocent man).
Either the costs are related to innocence or they are not.

It IS that simple.

"Politically feasible" is a bull**** excuse.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Joseph_Mengele
Posts: 388
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 2:45:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Its interesting how I didn't hear about this. All the news channels were going crazy about Tory Davis's death.

Why was Troy Davis being highlighted and the white supremacists weren't?

Zionist Fused Political Correctness
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 2:52:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 2:45:34 PM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:
Its interesting how I didn't hear about this. All the news channels were going crazy about Tory Davis's death.

Why was Troy Davis being highlighted and the white supremacists weren't?

Zionist Fused Political Correctness

funny how mengele implies that there is unfairness in this situation when the same ideologies and beliefs he subscribes to have spawned the worlds most genocidal, radical, and unjust acts of inhumanity is world history. How can one who does not respect fairness, demand it?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 3:01:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 11:12:17 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/22/2011 11:01:39 AM, Kinesis wrote:
Not that I feel any sympathy for him, but the large amount of money spent on each state execution could be put to better use.

Execution costs very little money, especially compared to a prison sentence.

What costs money is trials, i.e., insuring justice.

Since if you put someone in prison for life you're still taking their life away, it's DEFINITELY NOT A GOOD THING that you're cutting corners on trials there-- it means you're more likely to convict an innocent.

The death penalty-- saving innocent lives from the State.

(Contrariwise, if the increase in trial costs has nothing to do with avoiding convicting an innocent, then the increase in trial costs can be done away with.)

Wait, are you arguing against the death penalty?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 3:13:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 3:01:46 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/22/2011 11:12:17 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/22/2011 11:01:39 AM, Kinesis wrote:
Not that I feel any sympathy for him, but the large amount of money spent on each state execution could be put to better use.

Execution costs very little money, especially compared to a prison sentence.

What costs money is trials, i.e., insuring justice.

Since if you put someone in prison for life you're still taking their life away, it's DEFINITELY NOT A GOOD THING that you're cutting corners on trials there-- it means you're more likely to convict an innocent.

The death penalty-- saving innocent lives from the State.

(Contrariwise, if the increase in trial costs has nothing to do with avoiding convicting an innocent, then the increase in trial costs can be done away with.)

Wait, are you arguing against the death penalty?

No, he's arguing for them, because higher cost = higher accuracy (less innocent people convicted), if higher cost =/= higher accuracy, then there is no reason to impliment those higher costs.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 3:26:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 3:13:41 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/22/2011 3:01:46 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/22/2011 11:12:17 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/22/2011 11:01:39 AM, Kinesis wrote:
Not that I feel any sympathy for him, but the large amount of money spent on each state execution could be put to better use.

Execution costs very little money, especially compared to a prison sentence.

What costs money is trials, i.e., insuring justice.

Since if you put someone in prison for life you're still taking their life away, it's DEFINITELY NOT A GOOD THING that you're cutting corners on trials there-- it means you're more likely to convict an innocent.

The death penalty-- saving innocent lives from the State.

(Contrariwise, if the increase in trial costs has nothing to do with avoiding convicting an innocent, then the increase in trial costs can be done away with.)

Wait, are you arguing against the death penalty?

No, he's arguing for them, because higher cost = higher accuracy (less innocent people convicted), if higher cost =/= higher accuracy, then there is no reason to impliment those higher costs.

K, i get it. Almost had my world shattered there for a minute.
Joseph_Mengele
Posts: 388
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 4:48:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 4:17:24 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I guess we're not going to be seeing any more of Joseph_Mengele...

Hey...I'm still here...

Can a deceased person still type on a computer...?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 4:53:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 4:48:05 PM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:
At 9/22/2011 4:17:24 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I guess we're not going to be seeing any more of Joseph_Mengele...

Hey...I'm still here...

wish you weren't

Can a deceased person still type on a computer...?

no, but a troll sure can. :)
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
LeafRod
Posts: 1,548
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 5:09:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 2:45:34 PM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:
Its interesting how I didn't hear about this. All the news channels were going crazy about Tory Davis's death.

Why was Troy Davis being highlighted and the white supremacists weren't?

Zionist Fused Political Correctness

Because the Troy Davis case was about whether or not he actually committed the crime. Your buddies, on the other hand, freely admitted to their crimes and said they would do them again.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 5:20:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 2:45:34 PM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:
Its interesting how I didn't hear about this. All the news channels were going crazy about Tory Davis's death.

Why was Troy Davis being highlighted and the white supremacists weren't?:

Because the Troy Davis case is surrounded by extenuating circumstances supposedly proving his innocence, but is being denied.

The white supremaicst's innocence is not in question.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)