The liberal mindset has always been more sympathetic to wastes of skin that should have been put to death immediately after sentencing.
It’s the last earthly punishment we can administer to the deserving recipients.

Most liberals against the death penalty have never experienced anything remotely similar to what the families experienced.

I’ve said this before: Give the convicted subhuman filth same death they inflicted on their victims. There would be a line of volunteers around the block.

Unfortunately, they will also have very little body….

You seem to be suggesting that our prison system doesn’t need to be overrun by the victimless criminals and I would agree. But that would be counter to the harsh 3 strikes penalties that most conservatives approve of in liberal California.

Three strikes works just fine if the strikes are counted properly. Drug possession hurts no one but the user. Burglary is a different matter. It is not the job of government to protect people from themselves, only from others. Personally, I would start a points system, just like a driver’s license, except if you get enough points, you lose your life.

The death penalty is barbaric. In my opinion, that was the PRIMARY reason that Jesus came to Earth when He did. He wanted to show the world how barbaric people are if they are left to decide what is good and what is bad. Jesus was an innocent man that people decided needed to be killed. If he were alive today, he wouldn’t be killed because his lawyer would have gotten him off. But back then, Jesus showed mankind’s barbaric nature.

Um, have you actually read the Bible? Not just quoted from it, but actually read it? Nowhere does Jesus condemn the death penalty. Not once. In fact, like I said before, He at least implicitly endorses executions by the state, at the exact time, ironically enough, when He was being executed by the state.

Context, people. Context.

The emotional argument is ‘They killed so we must kill’. It doesn’t keep the crime from being committed, it doesn’t bring the person back to life, it does nothing to advance society other than make you feel emotionally whole. But it is barbaric. Do you have any issue with the concept that Iran can compare its judicial system with ours by pointing to the death penalty?

Um, no. The argument is, “They have killed, therefore we must remove them from society permanently and send a message that their conduct is unacceptable and cannot be tolerated.” Life in prison does not do that.

I’d also like to know what your definition of “barbaric” is. Abdicating a government responsibility by letting barbarians run the streets to prey on innocents so you can keep your moral vanity sounds more barbaric than the death penalty, and selfish to boot.

And, my gawd, how many times have we seen the argument that “Iran uses the death penalty, so we shouldn’t,” or “Saudi Arabia uses the death penalty, so we shouldn’t?” Talk abut a logical fallacy that is just plain childish. They use cars, too, so I guess we shouldn’t use cars. (Oops! Bad example — liberals hate cars.) They use silverware, too, so I guess we shouldn’t use silverware. They use toilet paper, too, so I guess we shouldn’t use toilet paper. After all, we don’t want to be like THEM.

Judge an idea on its merits, not on who uses it.

The death penalty is barbaric. In my opinion, that was the PRIMARY reason that Jesus came to Earth when He did.

Jesus came to earth because of the death penalty? That’s a new one.
Since this is your opinion and nothing more, I’ll leave it at that. But this claim is non substantiated by the Bible.

He wanted to show the world how barbaric people are if they are left to decide what is good and what is bad.

“For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God.” – I Peter 3:18a

This why Jesus was sent to dwell among us.

Jesus was an innocent man that people decided needed to be killed.

Jesus’ death was prophesy. He came to earth to die for our sins. Yes, He was innocent but His spilt blood was the only way to reconcile us with God. God sent Him – Jesus’ fate was already decided. He knew why He came, He knew why He would die and He fulfilled the Scriptures. These people that you speak of didn’t take His life – He gave it.

If he were alive today, he wouldn’t be killed because his lawyer would have gotten him off.

I see that you have made your own correction in #185. Nevertheless, this is pure speculation. Besides, His death was prophetic in nature, this lawyer that you speak of is no match for the Almighty.

But back then, Jesus showed mankind’s barbaric nature.

Huh?

God didn’t invent the death penalty in the Garden of Eden – well maybe he did after mankind decided he knew enough not to have to obey his Creator.

God did not create evil. God created freedom. The freedom to choose to follow His explicit instructions (i.e., do not eat the apple) or disobey Him and eat of the apple and face the consequences. There’s nothing noble in having to be forced to love and obey someone. You have the choice to follow God or worship a false god.

But again. . . this theological understanding goes way too deep for me to explain here.

But the death penalty is barbaric, and Jesus proved it.

I must have missed how Jesus proved that the death penalty was barbaric.
Thacker, maybe you should have read the above posts. We’ve touched on alot of what you are saying.

But the death penalty is barbaric, and Jesus proved it.

Hear Hear Thacker…

If He were alive walking on Earth today in the same situation, He wouldn’t be killed because His lawyer would have gotten him off.

This is not a hypothetical.

It is a complete hypothetical and hyperbole. And a massive straw man argument based on made up anecdotes. Now you are suggesting that we have to kill people because we have to protect criminals when they are in prison. I agree that you should be able to protect someone who you have total control over from harm (ie. when they are in prison), or something needs to be changed.

You seem to be suggesting that our prison system doesn’t need to be overrun by the victimless criminals and I would agree. But that would be counter to the harsh 3 strikes penalties that most conservatives approve of in liberal California.

If the justice system functioned properly, we would have enough space to keep violent criminals AWAY FROM SOCIETY. That’s what prison is for. When they are in prison, well too bad. But prison is to PROTECT SOCIETY FROM THESE BAD PEOPLE.

Again, there aren’t that many executions anyway. The most dangerous of the prisoners are held in isolation most of the time (deterrence again). If you opened up the space in the jails by relieving them of people in jail on these ridiculous penalties for minor and victim less crimes, then you wouldn’t have so many people on parole.

Generally the parole is given because they don’t have enough space in the jail. That’s a failure of the penal system.

The death penalty is barbaric. In my opinion, that was the PRIMARY reason that Jesus came to Earth when He did. He wanted to show the world how barbaric people are if they are left to decide what is good and what is bad. Jesus was an innocent man that people decided needed to be killed. If he were alive today, he wouldn’t be killed because his lawyer would have gotten him off. But back then, Jesus showed mankind’s barbaric nature.

God didn’t invent the death penalty in the Garden of Eden – well maybe he did after mankind decided he knew enough not to have to obey his Creator. But again. . . this theological understanding goes way too deep for me to explain here.

But the death penalty is barbaric, and Jesus proved it.

Well, that is where you are incredibly wrong. The most dangerous of these convicts is a life without parole convict. In their mind, they have absolutely nothing to lose. They are the ones that commit all the crimes behind bars. The drugs, the beat-downs, the gassings, the murders, the attacks of all types on the guards. Then there are the proson gangs and the infighting amongst them. Inside the prison system, the guards have had to create their own version of the SWAT teams.

I could go on and on with this lesson, but frankly, I have grown tired having to repeat myself today about this. Dakine claims that you have more knowledge about everything under the sun in your little finger than I do, though if that is true, i find that hard to believe since you apparently seem to be incredibly ignorant about all these facts as does the king of trolls, your friend Daline there.

I suggest you do just a wee bit of research. It isn’t difficult. Tell you guys what. Why don’t you look into the Surrenos and the Arryan Brotherhood. That’s all you have to google. Not too hard. Then look up the California Department of Corrections. I believe they have a nifty section on the violence inherent to the California Prison System

However, since you know all this stuff and it is filed away in your little finger, just flip up your nail and scan for it. Hate to be like this, but since Dakine decided to stick his big nose where it didn’t belong, he can either keep out of it, and you and I can talk about this, or he can stay and we can keep this at this level.

Choice is yours.

If you still think there is no more ways someone can continue along the violence trail and can keep killing once he in in prison for the rest of his life, including killing someone who is only in prison for a couple of months for some non-violent crime for say carrying a few joints,,,definately not worth the death sentance he then received being put in general with a known murderer of several people and known to possibly kill again, let me hear your rationalization. Let me hear why that person with a family and a house and friends who was only there for 6 months for holding 3 ounces of pot had to die because you felt the mass murderer shouldn’t have to go to the death chamber and get lethal injection and thus was out on the general population yard and didn’t happen to like the way Pot Boy looked at him that day.

Stand by your convictions. This is not a hypothetical. This is something that happens.

Moron.

Why do you feel the need to call people names? That’s more lazy than not reading all the posts. If you have issues with the arguments, then that should suffice without attacking your opponent’s character. Generally when I hear someone call someone else a name in an argument, it means they are losing.

I don’t hate anyone. . . but maybe you weren’t talking about me. I’m also not a liberal, but I’m sure that you can’t imagine that a conservative could possibly disagree with you on even ONE issue, right?

See how that went? I didn’t even call you a name.

You are just an idiot who is operating from pure emotion.

The emotional argument is ‘They killed so we must kill’. It doesn’t keep the crime from being committed, it doesn’t bring the person back to life, it does nothing to advance society other than make you feel emotionally whole. But it is barbaric. Do you have any issue with the concept that Iran can compare its judicial system with ours by pointing to the death penalty?

I don’t think guilty people should ever be allowed to commit murder again (life in prison is the deterrent to future crime – I realize I did not make that more abundantly clear in my posts).

I agree with the ‘victimless’ part. But as for the thieves, that’s something I am not sure about. If you put them in jail, they’ll just do it again when they get out. They need to be forced to somehow repay the stolen property for appropriate justice. I am glad that we don’t cut their hands off though – I think everyone would agree that would be a punishment that would not be acceptable.

Thank you dakine. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I am often wrong – critical thinking requires it. But I appreciate your comments.