Mom gets 110 years for raping kids

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I personally think that the death penality is too merciful...let them rot in jail as far as I'm concerned.

 

I'd agree with you on this, but the problem is these people don't rot in jail. My favorite story regarding this subject is when a lawyer said his client in jail had his rights violated because he didn't have Internet access....

[Ravenbomb 0]

I personally think that the death penality is too merciful...let them rot in jail as far as I'm concerned.

 

I'd agree with you on this, but the problem is these people don't rot in jail. My favorite story regarding this subject is when a lawyer said his client in jail had his rights violated because he didn't have Internet access....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

He got laughed out of court, right?

[Golgo 13 0]

We need the firing squad back. Now there was a cost effective way to kill inmates.

 

Although I don't think people like these should be put to death. They just need a bunch of hard labor and solitary confinement with a mattress, toilet and nothing more. There's no way they're being rehabilitated at this point, so focus on putting them to work and giving back to the state instead of being given privileges they don't deserve. It wouldn't fly with the disabled wife, but while the husband is old, he probably has a few years left to be put through his paces.

[A Happy Medium 0]

Some people say that the dealth penalty is actually more expensive than life imprisonment. At the surface, all you need is a gun, a bullet, and a cranium. However, we love paperwork in this country. It costs a lot of money to just bring one of them together. Plus, they have to follow regulations including sterile needles and other nonsense.

 

I'm split on the dealth penalty anyways.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

He got laughed out of court, right?

 

Don't know, but it's only a matter of time when Internet Access becomes a "civil right..."

[Boon 0]

It's hypocritical in the way that the law says don't kill, yet the law kills.

Yeah- to a certain degree. But people who punish the guilty are often less harshly judged then people who hurt the innocent. Kinda like "The Boondock Saints."

 

It isn't effective because places that have the death penalty do not have lower homicide rates than those who do not.

Are you talking about states, or other countries?

 

How does punishment in this case work?  We should be focusing on prevention of crimes and protection of the populace, and in all cases we should be acting in the least invasive manner possible.

 

Killing someone can't even be seen as punishment. There's no lesson to be learned by anyone. Especially since the mother and father didn't even a commit a murder so the whole 'eye for an eye' motto dosen't fly. We're perputuating more hate and we should not have a justice system bent on revenge. Rehabilitation of the offender and protection of the public should be the goals of the system.  A society that rebukes revenge, punishment, and barbarity is going to, on the whole, be a better society

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm with 2Gold on this one:

They definately aren't a candiate for rehabilation.

I also never said eye for an eye, I said the crime justifies the punishment.

 

Some people are just beyond saving, and people that don't recognize that are the same people that wonder why when murderers and rapists are released back into the public they murder and rape again. You want to prevent crimes and protect the populace? Demonstrate that fuckers like these do not deserve life and take away every opportunity they have to harm the rest of the world.

[EricMM 0]

In other circumstances I might be swayed on the death penalty. Might.

 

But it's just a statistical proof that it costs more to put a con through the death penalty than it does to keep them in jail until they die. We are so (rightfully) paranoid of sending an innocent person to die that we give them chance after chance to save their lives with some scrap of proof that before they die most cost more than just however many years of incarceration. Court dates, judges, public lawyers, juries, it all adds up. Compared to prisoners who should be forced to do menial and productive work for the rest of their natural lives, it's no contest.

 

If it turns out that a person was innocent and they're released from jail after ten years of wrongful incarceration, that's bad, but not as bad as someone who was killed.

 

 

Anyways, I feel like most people who demand "justice" with death are just too filled with rage. No person should have the right to demand the death of another. Unless someone is a threat, I don't think killing someone is the "only" solution or the "right" solution. No murder is so vile that they can hurt anyone behind bars.

 

Protest molly-coddling of prisoners all you want, I'll support you. But just because prisoners supposedly get cable doesn't mean they should all be killed.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

But it's just a statistical proof that it costs more to put a con through the death penalty than it does to keep them in jail until they die.

 

That's why if anyone attacks you, you need to kill them if you have the opportunity to before the police arrive.

 

Anyways, I feel like most people who demand "justice" with death are just too filled with rage.

 

And?...