Sadam's last minutes
-
It amazes me that in today's society, we have to be more humane than the perpetrators of the vilest crimes one human can inflict on another. I constantly hear cries for the punishment to be "life imprisonment". But what the "do-gooders" fail to think about are the people that are charged with keeping these people incarcerated. Who wouldn't like to be a guard in that type of facility? What does the "lifer" have to lose if he kills someone else or even kills a guard. What more can you do to him? Just life imprisonment? Tell you what, "do-gooders" ---why don't you volunteer to be the guards of these people you want to keep alive?? Then tell me one month later that you hands don't shake every time one of them is near you? Where were you when these "barbarians" you want to keep alive were torturing, maiming, slaughtering the innocents? Where were your voices then? What actions did you take? Or was it the proverbial "hand-wringing" that liberals always seem to be in a quandary of what to do --- what should we do? --- what should we do? Count me as one that says Saddam and his ilk died much too quickly. He didn't suffer nearly enough for the crimes he committed. And if today we had just gone through WW II and tried the Nazis and found them guilty of horrendous war crimes, would you be spouting off that they should also receive "life imprisonment"? Sorry, but I believe there are crimes that need to have a final solution that includes execution, and not by lethal injection. We save that for our animals --- not for human beings that make the conscious decision to slaughter 1000s of other human beings!
John P.
jparken wrote:
do-gooders" fail to think about are the people that are charged with keeping these people incarcerated.
And I should care - Why? After all, as right-wingers on this board routinely point out - all work is voluntary, if someone doesn't like being a prison guard, he can go to night school and get another job. Simple as pie, problem solved.
-
jparken wrote:
do-gooders" fail to think about are the people that are charged with keeping these people incarcerated.
And I should care - Why? After all, as right-wingers on this board routinely point out - all work is voluntary, if someone doesn't like being a prison guard, he can go to night school and get another job. Simple as pie, problem solved.
That's the typical asshole reply I would expect from a liberal. Since THEY don't have to be the ones to do it, then the hell with it --- it's someone else's problem. Liberals just come up with their "solutions" and fail to think of any possible consequences to them. Better yet, why don't we parole these pieces of filth --- maybe one can move in next to you, and being a good liberal, you can take care of him.
John P.
-
That's the typical asshole reply I would expect from a liberal. Since THEY don't have to be the ones to do it, then the hell with it --- it's someone else's problem. Liberals just come up with their "solutions" and fail to think of any possible consequences to them. Better yet, why don't we parole these pieces of filth --- maybe one can move in next to you, and being a good liberal, you can take care of him.
John P.
jparken wrote:
a**hole
that's a typical jparken reply.:rolleyes:
-
It amazes me that in today's society, we have to be more humane than the perpetrators of the vilest crimes one human can inflict on another. I constantly hear cries for the punishment to be "life imprisonment". But what the "do-gooders" fail to think about are the people that are charged with keeping these people incarcerated. Who wouldn't like to be a guard in that type of facility? What does the "lifer" have to lose if he kills someone else or even kills a guard. What more can you do to him? Just life imprisonment? Tell you what, "do-gooders" ---why don't you volunteer to be the guards of these people you want to keep alive?? Then tell me one month later that you hands don't shake every time one of them is near you? Where were you when these "barbarians" you want to keep alive were torturing, maiming, slaughtering the innocents? Where were your voices then? What actions did you take? Or was it the proverbial "hand-wringing" that liberals always seem to be in a quandary of what to do --- what should we do? --- what should we do? Count me as one that says Saddam and his ilk died much too quickly. He didn't suffer nearly enough for the crimes he committed. And if today we had just gone through WW II and tried the Nazis and found them guilty of horrendous war crimes, would you be spouting off that they should also receive "life imprisonment"? Sorry, but I believe there are crimes that need to have a final solution that includes execution, and not by lethal injection. We save that for our animals --- not for human beings that make the conscious decision to slaughter 1000s of other human beings!
John P.
jparken wrote:
I constantly hear cries for the punishment to be "life imprisonment". But what the "do-gooders" fail to think about are the people that are charged with keeping these people incarcerated.
So we should kill people when it becomes inconvenient to keep them alive?
jparken wrote:
What does the "lifer" have to lose if he kills someone else or even kills a guard.
So we should kill people for crimes they might commit?
jparken wrote:
And if today we had just gone through WW II and tried the Nazis and found them guilty of horrendous war crimes, would you be spouting off that they should also receive "life imprisonment"? Sorry, but I believe there are crimes that need to have a final solution that includes execution, and not by lethal injection.
An ironic choice of words. Shows your true colors.
-
jparken wrote:
I constantly hear cries for the punishment to be "life imprisonment". But what the "do-gooders" fail to think about are the people that are charged with keeping these people incarcerated.
So we should kill people when it becomes inconvenient to keep them alive?
jparken wrote:
What does the "lifer" have to lose if he kills someone else or even kills a guard.
So we should kill people for crimes they might commit?
jparken wrote:
And if today we had just gone through WW II and tried the Nazis and found them guilty of horrendous war crimes, would you be spouting off that they should also receive "life imprisonment"? Sorry, but I believe there are crimes that need to have a final solution that includes execution, and not by lethal injection.
An ironic choice of words. Shows your true colors.
So, you think people like the Nazis who perpetrated the Holocaust should be given life terms? Kind fo shows your TRUE COLORS too doesn't it?
John P.
-
So, you think people like the Nazis who perpetrated the Holocaust should be given life terms? Kind fo shows your TRUE COLORS too doesn't it?
John P.
I'm curious, where did WJousts state an opinion on the Nuremberg trials? Fabricating opinions- kinda shows your true colors:rolleyes:
-
jparken wrote:
I constantly hear cries for the punishment to be "life imprisonment". But what the "do-gooders" fail to think about are the people that are charged with keeping these people incarcerated.
So we should kill people when it becomes inconvenient to keep them alive?
jparken wrote:
What does the "lifer" have to lose if he kills someone else or even kills a guard.
So we should kill people for crimes they might commit?
jparken wrote:
And if today we had just gone through WW II and tried the Nazis and found them guilty of horrendous war crimes, would you be spouting off that they should also receive "life imprisonment"? Sorry, but I believe there are crimes that need to have a final solution that includes execution, and not by lethal injection.
An ironic choice of words. Shows your true colors.
-
Wjousts wrote:
So we should kill people when it becomes inconvenient to keep them alive?
Why not? we already do it with our children.
You may be right
I may be crazy
-- Billy Joel --Within you lies the power for good, use it!!!
-
jparken wrote:
I constantly hear cries for the punishment to be "life imprisonment". But what the "do-gooders" fail to think about are the people that are charged with keeping these people incarcerated.
So we should kill people when it becomes inconvenient to keep them alive?
jparken wrote:
What does the "lifer" have to lose if he kills someone else or even kills a guard.
So we should kill people for crimes they might commit?
jparken wrote:
And if today we had just gone through WW II and tried the Nazis and found them guilty of horrendous war crimes, would you be spouting off that they should also receive "life imprisonment"? Sorry, but I believe there are crimes that need to have a final solution that includes execution, and not by lethal injection.
An ironic choice of words. Shows your true colors.
Wjousts wrote:
So we should kill people for crimes they might commit?
Yes. That's the only reason I support the death penalty. It's the only way to ensure that a vicious criminal never kills again. Someone who's in prison for life (with no chance of parole) has zero motivation to become a better person, in fact, quite the opposite since he's got nothing to lose.
A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. - Friedrich Nietzsche
-
Wjousts wrote:
So we should kill people for crimes they might commit?
Yes. That's the only reason I support the death penalty. It's the only way to ensure that a vicious criminal never kills again. Someone who's in prison for life (with no chance of parole) has zero motivation to become a better person, in fact, quite the opposite since he's got nothing to lose.
A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. - Friedrich Nietzsche
2 practical reasons why, in the US that might not apply. It actually costs the state more to execute a criminal than it does to house him for life. There are super-security prisons in the US that isolate individuals so completely it can drive people crazy(so even a life without parole individual does still have something to lose).
-
I'm curious, where did WJousts state an opinion on the Nuremberg trials? Fabricating opinions- kinda shows your true colors:rolleyes:
I never purported to say he did mention anything about the Nuremburg trials ---- seems to me that I DIDN'T EITHER!! You liberals are good at making things up and putting words in other people's mouths!
John P.
-
I never purported to say he did mention anything about the Nuremburg trials ---- seems to me that I DIDN'T EITHER!! You liberals are good at making things up and putting words in other people's mouths!
John P.
jparken wrote:
seems to me that I DIDN'T EITHER!!
Well, yeah you did.
jparken wrote:
So, you think people like the Nazis who perpetrated the Holocaust should be given life terms?
Where would they have been given any kind of terms except at Nuremberg?
jparken wrote:
You liberals are good at making things up and putting words in other people's mouths!
No, you said it, I simply asked why.
-
PJ Arends wrote:
we already do it with our children.
No we don't. The few who do are in jail. Have you killed anybody?
A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. - Friedrich Nietzsche
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
No we don't.
Yes we do: http://www.statcan.ca/english/ads/91-209-XPE/highlights.htm[^] [quote] Induced abortions * The number of induced abortions performed annually on Canadian women has remained relatively stable for about a dozen years, averaging approximately 105,000. In 2003, about 54 % of these abortions were performed in hospitals and 46 % in Canadian clinics. * In Canada, about one abortion has been performed for every three births since the late 1990s. * One in two IA was performed on a woman in her twenties. The proportion of IA performed on adolescent girls aged between 15 and 19 years has declined slightly in Canada since 1999, going from 19,6 % to 17,0 % in 2003. [/quote] The rates are probably similiar across most of the western world.
You may be right
I may be crazy
-- Billy Joel --Within you lies the power for good, use it!!!
-
Wjousts wrote:
So we should kill people for crimes they might commit?
Yes. That's the only reason I support the death penalty. It's the only way to ensure that a vicious criminal never kills again. Someone who's in prison for life (with no chance of parole) has zero motivation to become a better person, in fact, quite the opposite since he's got nothing to lose.
A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. - Friedrich Nietzsche
So, since you are capable of killing somebody, should we put you to death just in case? Sure you might not have no anything yet, but your blood lust for executions are certainly worrying. Should we kill people who are terminally ill? After all, they also have nothing to lose. What about homeless, down and outs, they don't have much to lose, why take the risk? The basis of our criminal justice system is that somebody is innocent until proven guilty. You want to turn it around to declare people guilty before a crime has even be committed. You can't justify the punishment for one crime based on future crimes that haven't happened yet. If you believe in the death penalty it has to be for the crimes that have been committed.
-
You need to consider two things: 1) No western country other than the USA has carried out, allows or endorses executions in the twenty first century. 2) We are not in the 1940's anymore, sorry... What reaction did you expect?
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milkDavid Wulff wrote:
- No western country other than the USA has carried out, allows or endorses executions in the twenty first century.
Errr... so when the UK (or any other country) knowingly sends troops into a situation where they will definitely be asked to kill... how is that technically different than an execution?
"If you drink, don't drive. Don't even putt." - Dean Martin
-
David Wulff wrote:
- No western country other than the USA has carried out, allows or endorses executions in the twenty first century.
Errr... so when the UK (or any other country) knowingly sends troops into a situation where they will definitely be asked to kill... how is that technically different than an execution?
"If you drink, don't drive. Don't even putt." - Dean Martin
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Errr... so when the UK (or any other country) knowingly sends troops into a situation where they will definitely be asked to kill... how is that technically different than an execution?
:sigh:
John Carson
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Errr... so when the UK (or any other country) knowingly sends troops into a situation where they will definitely be asked to kill... how is that technically different than an execution?
:sigh:
John Carson
Sigh all you'd like if it helps you sleep at night. I'm not a big fan of executions (US or Iraqi) but labeling a single execution barbaric while excusing non-defensive military killing is absurd. In both cases a government is sanctioning death. Deal with it.
"If you drink, don't drive. Don't even putt." - Dean Martin
-
Sigh all you'd like if it helps you sleep at night. I'm not a big fan of executions (US or Iraqi) but labeling a single execution barbaric while excusing non-defensive military killing is absurd. In both cases a government is sanctioning death. Deal with it.
"If you drink, don't drive. Don't even putt." - Dean Martin
Mike Mullikin wrote:
I'm not a big fan of executions (US or Iraqi) but labeling a single execution barbaric while excusing non-defensive military killing is absurd. In both cases a government is sanctioning death.
:sigh: I'm not sure of your definition of "non-defensive military killing", but the basic distinction here is between people in custody and under the control of their captors and people who are not in custody and not under the control of their would-be captors.
John Carson
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
I'm not a big fan of executions (US or Iraqi) but labeling a single execution barbaric while excusing non-defensive military killing is absurd. In both cases a government is sanctioning death.
:sigh: I'm not sure of your definition of "non-defensive military killing", but the basic distinction here is between people in custody and under the control of their captors and people who are not in custody and not under the control of their would-be captors.
John Carson
-
I'll bet the victims in either case don't see the distinction.
"If you drink, don't drive. Don't even putt." - Dean Martin
Mike Mullikin wrote:
I'll bet the victims in either case don't see the distinction.
I suppose you could say the same of people struck by lightning. There is a moral distinction nevertheless.
John Carson
