Editorial: Should Life Sentences Be Abolished?

I’ve always been for the death penalty, but I know that the “elites” are too sympathetic to society’s enemies to expect to see implemented is a quick and effective fashion.

God and his prophets were pretty practical about such things. Give capabilities of modern day medicine, the Bible, or at least the Old Testament would have recommended allowing murdering miscreants to repay society with their organs and tissues.

Yes they should be ended, with a rope or a bullet.

Absolutely!

Most the arguments against capital punishment are essentially taking the desired aspect, the purpose or intent and then spinning a converse argument from it. For example, they take the “permanence” and argue that we can't correct a mistake, that we might execute an innocent person etc....... of course they can't give you an example of such an execution, but they will list many where they think and speculate of some possible innocence, using the typical BS arguments of racism, corruption and some conspiracy. These arguments really amount to rhetoric and polemics, the art of playing with words and constructing arguments. From a logic standpoint, these arguments are largely a red herring, a diversion since they refocus attention on a non-issue.

The other type of argument by the anti-death penalty folks is the typical sort of junk we here all to often nowadays. The fallacies with their appeals to emotions (The inhumanity), appeal to celebrity (Hollywood actors/musicians etc), bandwagon (other nations don't do this)....... The take things out of context, may it be cost or the effectiveness of the deterrent effect....... In all reality, the debate of capital punishment is like many liberal vs. conservative debates, it's one of feelings vs. reason.

Why execute:
Cost
Deterrence
Permanence
Closure

Those that can't understand the need for this seldom are confronted with these realities:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38256677/

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,592339,00.html

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,2742164,00.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1566065.ece

The liberals always pretend to be intellectual, to have some higher ethical calling, and their argument is ALWAYS the same, “We'll lock them up and throw away the keys” (As if the argument of capital punishments permanence is superfluous). They can't give me ONE SINGLE CASE where with certainty since its re-institution an innocent person was executed, but I can list dozens of terrorosists who in some cases were out in under 20 years and have the death of multiple, premeditation, and don't even have remorse for their actions were let go. The liberal then tries to come up with BS arguments of low IQ’s, under age, the newer spins of the bad childhood argument. Essentially they try to make it sound as if you can trip and fall and land on death row. These people didn't accidentally land in death row: http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/deathrow.htm They usually follow a pattern where over several years they commit several violent offense's, culminating in some sort of premeditated heinous crime that involves death, often multiple. Even if you get in a scuffle and push someone down the stairs and they die, if you get into a bar fight and hit someone with a bottle killing them....... you're not getting death. Again, there is a pattern: over a longer time span multiple violent type of offense's culminating in a particularalily bad crime where you had both premeditation and death. Example Upcoming executions ( http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/scheduledexecutions.htm ):

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/statistics/deathrow/drowlist/cantup.jpg

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/statistics/deathrow/drowlist/bradford.jpg

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/wootenlarry.htm

What you have are the above listed facts vs. crap like this in the minds of those against capital punishment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Man_Walking_(film)

The only reason why costs aren't lower is because in some states death row inmates sit for 20 years before execution, if ever. So you have the cost of the extended incarceration in addition to the execution. Furthermore most statistics compare the average cost of incarceration over an extended time to those on death row when they come up with their bogus statistics. However, those on death row have to be in maximum security and this shifts the costs considerably.

The reason the deterrent effect doesn't work is because unlike in Saudi Arabia, the US many years past, in Germany years past...... we no longer publicly execute and the delay of punishment is too long, thereby loosing this effect. It needs to be swift and public.

With the argument of closure the anti-death penalty advocate attacks the victims! Yes, they talk of revenge and then they take scripture out context, trying to redefine Christianity as a pacifics religion where your other cheek is supposed to mean that you need to be a defenseless sheep. Casting the first stone means that we can't punish at all anymore if you take their argument to its absurd end. Ironically most of these people never read the Bible, they simply search for some passages they think supports their cause.

On permanence they simply take the inverse argument and try to use the permanence in conjunction with a mistake which they can't give you an example of, as an argument of how this theoretically could be a bad thing.

There are some people who can best serve mankind by being made into fertilizer. They have no redeeming values, can't be trusted and are dangerous to the core. They are wolves, sociopaths who would cut your throat for the most minuscule reason. They are a danger even for those who are tasked to maintain them. It's nice that some women that lack social skills or have some weird sexual perversion like to strike up conversations with this vermin and then write books that are made into movies, but the reality is these inmates are there for a reason, the wardens aren't even safe, these folks have no redeeming values and are not salvageable, never being safe to reintegrate into society.

Absolutely!

Most the arguments against capital punishment are essentially taking the desired aspect, the purpose or intent and then spinning a converse argument from it. For example, they take the “permanence” and argue that we can't correct a mistake, that we might execute an innocent person etc....... of course they can't give you an example of such an execution, but they will list many where they think and speculate of some possible innocence, using the typical BS arguments of racism, corruption and some conspiracy. These arguments really amount to rhetoric and polemics, the art of playing with words and constructing arguments. From a logic standpoint, these arguments are largely a red herring, a diversion since they refocus attention on a non-issue.

The other type of argument by the anti-death penalty folks is the typical sort of junk we here all to often nowadays. The fallacies with their appeals to emotions (The inhumanity), appeal to celebrity (Hollywood actors/musicians etc), bandwagon (other nations don't do this)....... The take things out of context, may it be cost or the effectiveness of the deterrent effect....... In all reality, the debate of capital punishment is like many liberal vs. conservative debates, it's one of feelings vs. reason.

Why execute:
Cost
Deterrence
Permanence
Closure

Those that can't understand the need for this seldom are confronted with these realities:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38256677/

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,592339,00.html

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,2742164,00.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1566065.ece

The liberals always pretend to be intellectual, to have some higher ethical calling, and their argument is ALWAYS the same, “We'll lock them up and throw away the keys” (As if the argument of capital punishments permanence is superfluous). They can't give me ONE SINGLE CASE where with certainty since its re-institution an innocent person was executed, but I can list dozens of terrorosists who in some cases were out in under 20 years and have the death of multiple, premeditation, and don't even have remorse for their actions were let go. The liberal then tries to come up with BS arguments of low IQ’s, under age, the newer spins of the bad childhood argument. Essentially they try to make it sound as if you can trip and fall and land on death row. These people didn't accidentally land in death row: http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/deathrow.htm They usually follow a pattern where over several years they commit several violent offense's, culminating in some sort of premeditated heinous crime that involves death, often multiple. Even if you get in a scuffle and push someone down the stairs and they die, if you get into a bar fight and hit someone with a bottle killing them....... you're not getting death. Again, there is a pattern: over a longer time span multiple violent type of offense's culminating in a particularalily bad crime where you had both premeditation and death. Example Upcoming executions ( http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/scheduledexecutions.htm ):

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/statistics/deathrow/drowlist/cantup.jpg

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/statistics/deathrow/drowlist/bradford.jpg

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/wootenlarry.htm

What you have are the above listed facts vs. crap like this in the minds of those against capital punishment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Man_Walking_(film)

The only reason why costs aren't lower is because in some states death row inmates sit for 20 years before execution, if ever. So you have the cost of the extended incarceration in addition to the execution. Furthermore most statistics compare the average cost of incarceration over an extended time to those on death row when they come up with their bogus statistics. However, those on death row have to be in maximum security and this shifts the costs considerably.

The reason the deterrent effect doesn't work is because unlike in Saudi Arabia, the US many years past, in Germany years past...... we no longer publicly execute and the delay of punishment is too long, thereby loosing this effect. It needs to be swift and public.

With the argument of closure the anti-death penalty advocate attacks the victims! Yes, they talk of revenge and then they take scripture out context, trying to redefine Christianity as a pacifics religion where your other cheek is supposed to mean that you need to be a defenseless sheep. Casting the first stone means that we can't punish at all anymore if you take their argument to its absurd end. Ironically most of these people never read the Bible, they simply search for some passages they think supports their cause.

On permanence they simply take the inverse argument and try to use the permanence in conjunction with a mistake which they can't give you an example of, as an argument of how this theoretically could be a bad thing.

There are some people who can best serve mankind by being made into fertilizer. They have no redeeming values, can't be trusted and are dangerous to the core. They are wolves, sociopaths who would cut your throat for the most minuscule reason. They are a danger even for those who are tasked to maintain them. It's nice that some women that lack social skills or have some weird sexual perversion like to strike up conversations with this vermin and then write books that are made into movies, but the reality is these inmates are there for a reason, the wardens aren't even safe, these folks have no redeeming values and are not salvageable, never being safe to reintegrate into society.

Absolutely!

Most the arguments against capital punishment are essentially taking the desired aspect, the purpose or intent and then spinning a converse argument from it. For example, they take the “permanence” and argue that we can't correct a mistake, that we might execute an innocent person etc....... of course they can't give you an example of such an execution, but they will list many where they think and speculate of some possible innocence, using the typical BS arguments of racism, corruption and some conspiracy. These arguments really amount to rhetoric and polemics, the art of playing with words and constructing arguments. From a logic standpoint, these arguments are largely a red herring, a diversion since they refocus attention on a non-issue.

The other type of argument by the anti-death penalty folks is the typical sort of junk we here all to often nowadays. The fallacies with their appeals to emotions (The inhumanity), appeal to celebrity (Hollywood actors/musicians etc), bandwagon (other nations don't do this)....... The take things out of context, may it be cost or the effectiveness of the deterrent effect....... In all reality, the debate of capital punishment is like many liberal vs. conservative debates, it's one of feelings vs. reason.

Why execute:
Cost
Deterrence
Permanence
Closure

Those that can't understand the need for this seldom are confronted with these realities:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38256677/

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,592339,00.html

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,2742164,00.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1566065.ece

The liberals always pretend to be intellectual, to have some higher ethical calling, and their argument is ALWAYS the same, “We'll lock them up and throw away the keys” (As if the argument of capital punishments permanence is superfluous). They can't give me ONE SINGLE CASE where with certainty since its re-institution an innocent person was executed, but I can list dozens of terrorosists who in some cases were out in under 20 years and have the death of multiple, premeditation, and don't even have remorse for their actions were let go. The liberal then tries to come up with BS arguments of low IQ’s, under age, the newer spins of the bad childhood argument. Essentially they try to make it sound as if you can trip and fall and land on death row. These people didn't accidentally land in death row: http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/deathrow.htm They usually follow a pattern where over several years they commit several violent offense's, culminating in some sort of premeditated heinous crime that involves death, often multiple. Even if you get in a scuffle and push someone down the stairs and they die, if you get into a bar fight and hit someone with a bottle killing them....... you're not getting death. Again, there is a pattern: over a longer time span multiple violent type of offense's culminating in a particularalily bad crime where you had both premeditation and death. Example Upcoming executions ( http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/scheduledexecutions.htm ):

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/statistics/deathrow/drowlist/cantup.jpg

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/statistics/deathrow/drowlist/bradford.jpg

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/wootenlarry.htm

What you have are the above listed facts vs. crap like this in the minds of those against capital punishment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Man_Walking_(film)

The only reason why costs aren't lower is because in some states death row inmates sit for 20 years before execution, if ever. So you have the cost of the extended incarceration in addition to the execution. Furthermore most statistics compare the average cost of incarceration over an extended time to those on death row when they come up with their bogus statistics. However, those on death row have to be in maximum security and this shifts the costs considerably.

The reason the deterrent effect doesn't work is because unlike in Saudi Arabia, the US many years past, in Germany years past...... we no longer publicly execute and the delay of punishment is too long, thereby loosing this effect. It needs to be swift and public.

With the argument of closure the anti-death penalty advocate attacks the victims! Yes, they talk of revenge and then they take scripture out context, trying to redefine Christianity as a pacifics religion where your other cheek is supposed to mean that you need to be a defenseless sheep. Casting the first stone means that we can't punish at all anymore if you take their argument to its absurd end. Ironically most of these people never read the Bible, they simply search for some passages they think supports their cause.

On permanence they simply take the inverse argument and try to use the permanence in conjunction with a mistake which they can't give you an example of, as an argument of how this theoretically could be a bad thing.

There are some people who can best serve mankind by being made into fertilizer. They have no redeeming values, can't be trusted and are dangerous to the core. They are wolves, sociopaths who would cut your throat for the most minuscule reason. They are a danger even for those who are tasked to maintain them. It's nice that some women that lack social skills or have some weird sexual perversion like to strike up conversations with this vermin and then write books that are made into movies, but the reality is these inmates are there for a reason, the wardens aren't even safe, these folks have no redeeming values and are not salvageable, never being safe to reintegrate into society.