Quote:

---

Mr.Al said:
Higher organization can occur without control.

---

Quote:

---

Mr.Al said:
Government may shrink and start taking care of only it's specific job description.

---

Quote:

---

Mr.Al said:
If government continues on it's present path the medium of exchange would be destroyed and people will "lose faith" in it anyway.

---

Quote:

---

I condone the mass murder of thugs, not innocent people who are living in peace.

---

Quote:

---

pothead_bob said:

Quote:

---

I condone the mass murder of thugs, not innocent people who are living in peace.

---

So you don't consider their situation at all?

---

Whose situation? Be clear. 

Quote:

---

pothead_bob said:
You don't consider why such people are driven to murder in the first place?

---

Of course I consider that, but their reasons don't matter to me much at all when they are pointing a pistol at my face.

Quote:

---

pothead_bob said:
Instead of trying to treat the societal problems at their source, you'd rather just eliminate that branch of society when it finally reaches the breaking point?

---

Quote me where I said or implied any of this.

Quote:

---

pothead_bob said:
I'm curious on your stance on the war on drugs

---

The government has absolutely no business to control drugs, IMO.

Quote:

---

pothead_bob said:
And what of the innocent people who were unlucky enough to be sentenced to death by mistake (yes, it does happen)?  Tough shit, eh?

---

I am against people who are given the death penalty when the only evidence that their conviction is based on is circumstantial; of course I feel for the wrongly accused...

Quote:

---

Of course I consider that, but their reasons don't matter to me much at all when they are pointing a pistol at my face.

---

Quote:

---

Quote me where I said or implied any of this.

---

Quote:

---

I am against people who are given the death penalty when the only evidence that their conviction is based on is circumstantial; of course I feel for the wrongly accused...

---

Quote:

---

pothead_bob said:
The person who was senteced to die, of course.

Quote:

---

Of course I consider that, but their reasons don't matter to me much at all when they are pointing a pistol at my face.

---

And how does giving them the death penalty stop them from pointing the pistol in your face?

---

Quote:

---

pothead_bob said:

Quote:

---

Quote me where I said or implied any of this.

---

You said you're okay with the 'mass-murder' of thugs.

---

Quote:

---

pothead_bob said:

Quote:

---

I am against people who are given the death penalty when the only evidence that their conviction is based on is circumstantial; of course I feel for the wrongly accused...

---

As long as there is a death penalty, people will die innocently.

---

Quote:

---

    Quote:
    pothead_bob said:
    The person who was senteced to die, of course.

        Quote:
        Of course I consider that, but their reasons don't matter to me much at all when they are pointing a pistol at my face.



    And how does giving them the death penalty stop them from pointing the pistol in your face?

They won't be alive.

---

Quote:

---

    Quote:
    pothead_bob said:

        Quote:
        I am against people who are given the death penalty when the only evidence that their conviction is based on is circumstantial; of course I feel for the wrongly accused...



    As long as there is a death penalty, people will die innocently.

Nope, not necessarily; I wonder what you're basing this nonsense on...

---

Gee, I wonder...

Quote:

---

I clearly stated my stance on the death penalty, and it hasn't changed the last couple of minutes.

---

Quote:

---

You know, I haven't put too much thought into why I agree with the death penalty; I could say that it is an agreeable "policy", for lack of a better term, because of its deterrent effects, but it wouldn't deter suicidal martyrs. It would deter a good deal of thugs who want to kill but don't want to die, but that's about where its power as a deterrent ends.

---

Quote:

---

    Quote:
    pothead_bob said:
    Furthermore, how does killing a person that killed a person fix anything?

I'm not going over this again, I've already explained the potential deterrent factor of the death penalty, amongst other things; just go back and read my previous exchanges with Mr.Al if you really want to know my answer to this question.

---

Quote:

---

pothead_bob said:
A cop shooting the guy is not the death penalty.

---

It's still a death penalty.

Quote:

---

pothead_bob said:
Gee, I wonder...

---

Quote:

---

pothead_bob said:
What about when the direct evidence is a persons testimony?

---

Quote:

---

pothead_bob said:
Just like the war on drugs has curbed drug use in America since its inception.

---

Fuck the war on drugs.

Quote:

---

meatcakeman said:
Sure, the jury has the last say whether or not someone gets murdered using taxpayers' dollars, but the government had the initial OK for it to even be legal. If it weren't legal, it wouldn't exist. And legality lies within the legislative and judicial powers of the government.

---

Quote:

---

We give others the means to kill and pose it as a good cause

---

Quote:

---

pothead_bob said:
Just like the war on drugs has curbed drug use in America since its inception.

---

Quote:

---

    Quote:
    pothead_bob said:
    Gee, I wonder...



Those are trends; what don't you get about the term 'not necessarily'?

---

Quote:

---

That's definitely not enough, IMO; I can go to the police station right now and tell them that I've murdered someone, but they cannot convict me until there is evidence. They might arrest me, and they might even conduct a trial, but if there's not enough evidence to prove that I actually killed someone, then I wouldn't be convicted of murder.

---

Quote:

---

Fuck the war on drugs.

---

Quote:

---

    Quote:
    pothead_bob said:
    Just like the war on drugs has curbed drug use in America since its inception.



unlike the war on drugs, if you're executed you dont have the chance to become a repeat offender

---

Quote:

---

Georgia Board to Pardon Woman 60 Years After Her Execution - The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles has announced that it will issue a formal pardon this month for Lena Baker (pictured), the only woman executed in the state during the 20th century. The document, signed by all five of the current board members, will note that the parole board's 1945 decision to deny Baker clemency and allow her execution was "a grievous error, as this case called out for mercy." Baker, an African American, was executed for the murder of Ernest Knight, a white man who hired her . Baker was tried, convicted, and sentenced to die in one day by an all-white, all-male jury. Baker claimed she shot Knight in self-defense after he locked her in his gristmill and threatened her with a metal pipe. The pardon notes that Baker "could have been charged with voluntary manslaughter, rather than murder, for the death of E.B. Knight." The average sentence for voluntary manslaughter is 15 years in prison. Baker's picture and her last words are currently displayed near the retired electric chair at a museum at Georgia State Prison in Reidsville. (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, August 16, 2005). See Race, Clemency and Women.

---

Quote:

---

pothead_bob said:

Quote:

---

    Quote:
    pothead_bob said:
    Gee, I wonder...



Those are trends; what don't you get about the term 'not necessarily'?

---

Well, I assumed we were talking about the real world here.

---

What is the title of this thread?

Quote:

---

pothead_bob said:

Quote:

---

That's definitely not enough, IMO; I can go to the police station right now and tell them that I've murdered someone, but they cannot convict me until there is evidence. They might arrest me, and they might even conduct a trial, but if there's not enough evidence to prove that I actually killed someone, then I wouldn't be convicted of murder.

---

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but you incriminating yourself by saying that you killed them would be the evidence.  Or a witness testifying that you killed them would be the evidence.  At any rate, testimony from witnesses has been used as grounds for administering the death penalty before, like with Gregory Lynn Summers, executed in Texas, 2006 http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/ncadp/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=5306 .

---

There needs to be real evidence, dude.


 

Quote:

---

pothead_bob said:
We could argue all day about what is and is not correct grounds for sentencing somebody to die, but everybody will never be in agreement.  I don't think anybody's system will be perfect, either.  Mistakes will still be made and these are human lives we're talking about.  The only failsafe solution, in my opinion, is to not even have capital punishment.

---

People who kill are pieces of shit and a waste of resources; you know how much money it costs to keep an inmate in a prison for life? A shitload of our money to keep this asshole who wants to kill us and our friends and family.

Quote:

---

pothead_bob said:
Couldn't agree more, but my point is that just like imprisoning people and potentially ruining their lives isn't effective as a deterrent to stop them from doing drugs, I don't believe that having capital punishment is much of a deterrent to someone who is either committed to killing somebody or who is mentally fucked up and wants to abduct, rape and then eat small girls.  I highly doubt the latter, especially, gives much of a shit of possibly being sentenced to death if they're caught.

---

Now you're getting into the 'insanity plea'; that's a whole 'nother arena!

Quote:

---

What is the title of this thread?

---

Quote:

---

There needs to be real evidence, dude.

---

Quote:

---

People who kill are pieces of shit and a waste of resources; you know how much money it costs to keep an inmate in a prison for life? A shitload of our money to keep this asshole who wants to kill us and our friends and family.

---

I do, as a matter of fact. 



Between $13,000 and $45,000 per year.  Now, do you know how much it costs to keep a prisoner on death row?

Quote:

---

“The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California’s current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually.”

    Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year.

    The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year.

    The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year.

    The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year.

---

Quote:

---

Maryland
New Study Reveals Maryland Pays $37 Million for One Execution

A new study released by the Urban Institute on March 6, 2008 forecasted that the lifetime expenses of capitally-prosecuted cases since 1978 will cost Maryland taxpayers $186 million.  That translates into at least $37.2 million for each of the state’s five executions since the state reenacted the death penalty. The study estimates that the average cost to Maryland taxpayers for reaching a single death sentence is $3 million - $1.9 million more than the cost of a non-death penalty case. (This includes investigation, trial, appeals, and incarceration costs.) The study examined 162 capital cases that were prosecuted between 1978 and 1999 and found that those cases will cost $186 million more than what those cases would have cost had the death penalty not existed as a punishment. At every phase of a case, according to the study, capital murder cases cost more than non-capital murder cases.

Of the 162 capital cases, there werer 106 cases in which a death sentence was sought but not handed down in Maryland. Those cases cost the state an additional $71 million compared to the cost non-death penalty cases.  Those costs were incurred simply to seek the death penalty where the ultimate outcome was a life or long-term prison sentence.

---

Quote:

---

pothead_bob said:

Quote:

---

What is the title of this thread?

---

I Believe the Government's Fundamental Role is to Protect Ourselves From Each Other

Point?

---

Quote:

---

pothead_bob said:

Quote:

---

There needs to be real evidence, dude.

---

Obviously there needs to be a dead person, but if you confess to being the murderer, you'll be charged based on your testimony.

---

Quote:

---

pothead_bob said:

Quote:

---

People who kill are pieces of shit and a waste of resources; you know how much money it costs to keep an inmate in a prison for life? A shitload of our money to keep this asshole who wants to kill us and our friends and family.

---

I do, as a matter of fact. 



Between $13,000 and $45,000 per year.  Now, do you know how much it costs to keep a prisoner on death row?

---

A lot more; why not kill 'em faster?

Quote:

---

pothead_bob said:
Oh and you are once again assuming that the person on death row is, in fact, guilty.

---

Oh, and you are, once again, guilty of psychologically projecting.

Quote:

---

pothead_bob said:
As I have proved before, that is not always the case.  Think of that before you start calling them pieces of shit who are a waste of resources.

---

I said "people who kill", not death row inmates.

Quote:

---

This thread is about what I believe the government "should" be like, not about how it realistically is or can be.

---

Quote:

---

I may be charged, but I won't be convicted.

---

Quote:

---

A lot more; why not kill 'em faster?

---

Quote:

---

Oh, and you are, once again, guilty of psychologically projecting. 

---

Quote:

---

I said "people who kill", not death row inmates.

---

Quote:

---

pothead_bob said:

Quote:

---

This thread is about what I believe the government "should" be like, not about how it realistically is or can be.

---

copout. I'm challenging your views on the death penalty which you have claimed to support. However, it's becoming clear that you have no logical basis for supporting it. When I respond to you with facts and sources, you respond with one-liners that don't address the points I bring up.

---

I already explained pretty damn clearly when I believe the death penalty is appropriate; this comment here was not intended to be a justification for my beliefs regarding the death penalty, it was aimed at a comment you made earlier that was something like, "I thought we were talking about the real world?".

I didn't cop out of anything.

Quote:

---

pothead_bob said:

Quote:

---

I may be charged, but I won't be convicted.

---

Whether or not you are convicted will come down to the decision of the jury based on the evidence presented. Testimonies can and will be used as evidence. 

Quote:

---

A lot more; why not kill 'em faster?

---

Yeah, good solution.

How old r u by the way?

---

What a sense of humor you got on your shoulders there, boy!

20.

Quote:

---

pothead_bob said:

Quote:

---

Oh, and you are, once again, guilty of psychologically projecting. 

---

oh yeah I forgot you're talking about the United States of Fantasy...

---

You're the one who is making fantasies about my thoughts.

Quote:

---

pothead_bob said:
...where you magically know who is guilty of murder and who is not. Sorry I assumed that when you said you supported the death penalty you were talking about the one where a person is convicted of a crime by a jury, sentenced to death by a jury, and then executed at some date in the future as opposed to the one where poid is all knowing and where no mistakes can be made in administering justice.

---

This is what I meant; more projections...

Quote:

---

pothead_bob said:
Do you support the death penalty that requires the use of a justice system involving mortals and not omnipotent beings?

---

What kind of fucking question is this?

Whether the beings involved in said death penalty are mortal or "omnipotent" has nothing no bearing on my opinion.

Quote:

---

pothead_bob said:
If not, then could you please explain the way the death penalty that you're talking about works?  If you don't know what you're talking about and don't know why you said you support the death penalty, is there any chance you could admit that?

---

Not every US state enforces the death penalty; I am aware of many of the flaws that exist throughout the prison system, not just the those that exist within the death penalty. I don't completely agree with every state's administration of the death penalty, nor do I know every single little tid-bit of information for every state regarding the death penalty.

All I know is that if there's a dangerous criminal out there that is going to kill people no matter what, I want him dead.