88% of the nation’s leading criminologists do not believe the death penalty is an effective deterrent to crime. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/files/DeterrenceStudy2009.pdf
Over two-thirds of police chiefs do not believe that the death penalty is one of their most important tools.
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/front-line-law-enforcement-views-death-penalty#sxn2
Do you also support torturing American citizens because of the invaluable information it provides?
This illustrates my point. Of the countries listed very few of you would want to live in any of them but the USA.
Completely agree on that case, he needs to be locked up and the key thrown away. But this case again illustrates my point about the government killing people. The case was royally screwed up. Many of them are, our justice system sucks. This time it's going to let him off far too lightly, but the reverse is also true. There have been 15 executions since 1981 of people who have had compelling evidence that they were innocent surface due to new technology and investigations.
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent
How many innocent deaths is an acceptable number to reap the disputable benefits mentioned by @WKBlu that every country on my previous list seems to do just fine without? I say zero.
The torture reference was a simple analogy. You are willing to execute innocent people to gain the supposed interrogation benefits you mentioned. Both that point and the abortion one were addressed in my last post you must have missed.Your mind just jumps around and makes you nearly incoherent...
No where did I offer an opinion on whether the death penalty is a deterrent to crime. Nor did I advocate torture or even mention it or make any remark on its effectiveness. I simply remarked that during investigations the threat of the death penalty has been an effective tool in getting confessions and getting an offender to offer up accomplices.
The website you linked sounds like it has an agenda just by the name, normally I would give it a look if another poster linked it but because of how generally nuts everything you say is, I’m cautious to click any link you provide. Honestly, even if 2/3rds of police chiefs actually believed that...I’m more concerned with the detectives who face the murders and rapists in the interrogation room and their opinion not the chief who does the news conference.
Still waiting for your list of countries that allow abortions up to 28 weeks like the US...
Very rarely is evidence ever 100%. But if it were then I could see the moral appeal. In practice though it isn't only applied in 100% video evidence cases and often has a racial disparity in it's application just like other sentencing. And I agree that just because another country does something doesn't mean we should, but we have access to all sorts of information today that we didn't use to and should be taking advantage of that. The federal system was designed to make laboratories of democracy and we should be drawing on data from other democracies who have tried things we haven't and learned from them.No doubt it swings both ways. And I agree our justice system needs some kind of change.
When you have evidence that isn’t 100% the death penalty shouldn’t even be an option. But when you have irrefutable evidence that person X killed a person(s), I’m not opposed to the death penalty.
Also just because Europe and Canada do (or don’t) do something doesn’t mean we should (or shouldn’t).
This illustrates my point. Of the countries listed very few of you would want to live in any of them but the USA.
Completely agree on that case, he needs to be locked up and the key thrown away. But this case again illustrates my point about the government killing people. The case was royally screwed up. Many of them are, our justice system sucks. This time it's going to let him off far too lightly, but the reverse is also true. There have been 15 executions since 1981 of people who have had compelling evidence that they were innocent surface due to new technology and investigations.
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent
How many innocent deaths is an acceptable number to reap the disputable benefits mentioned by @WKBlu that every country on my previous list seems to do just fine without? I say zero.
You disagree with me so not only are my views are unworthy of consideration, but I am as an entire person. Now who's the snowflake? Maybe you should go join your people rioting at UC Berkeley.And the idea you think a man who killed live babies for decades should be allowed to live out his days until a natural death takes him...makes you and your views unworthy of consideration. You can troll the others but I won’t respond to your staggering stupidity again.
I’m advocating for the government to not have the power to kill any of its citizens. Baby eater included yes.
Then your u may have some problems with that approach as well
If the government lacks the power to kill - do they also lack the ability to make war (even a defensive one) ?
If the government (which is supposed to be “us”.....but there IS no “us”...) CAN make war... do they also decide who and when they must fight?
If they CAN then there’s always the possibility that they name you as the threat righ
Also think that the states should generally decide themselves
Only racist bigots i see are liberals.
Only racist bigots i see are liberals.
I’m pro the government not telling its citizens what they can and can’t do with their own bodies. That includes abortion, suicide, and substances.
You missed an earlier point about cultural values placing an emphasis on education. Everyone in this country can get the basic education needed to get started if they apply themselves and in most cases it requires parents to ensure that they do. Discipline plays a large part in making this happen. Assistance should come to those who really work for it and not to those who just think they deserve what others have but, put forth no effort to try and get it.Those who transcend the circumstances of their birth are surely to be commended, but those who don’t shouldn’t be abandoned. Plenty of whites are born into difficult economic circumstances, should they be denied assistance and scholarships because they lack “hard work and determination”?
How many innocent babies do you agree to killing every year? Flawed logic here.This illustrates my point. Of the countries listed very few of you would want to live in any of them but the USA.
Completely agree on that case, he needs to be locked up and the key thrown away. But this case again illustrates my point about the government killing people. The case was royally screwed up. Many of them are, our justice system sucks. This time it's going to let him off far too lightly, but the reverse is also true. There have been 15 executions since 1981 of people who have had compelling evidence that they were innocent surface due to new technology and investigations.
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent
How many innocent deaths is an acceptable number to reap the disputable benefits mentioned by @WKBlu that every country on my previous list seems to do just fine without? I say zero.
Yeah, programmers use data from people who use their apps. Same as what the Obama campaign did. The data used by CA and Trump campaign was not from their apps but some other person who did not have permission to give that data to someone else. That's the BIG difference. It's one of those subtleties in fact that conservatives love to ignore when trying to make their points. They do this on the regular. It's a hallmark of Fox News as well.
If I give Words with Friends permission to use some of my FB data it is assumed that they can't then give my data to the Queer Republicans for Trump group.
Obama did not get illegally obtained data. CA and thus the Trump campaign did. That's the difference in a nutshell.
You’re the one assuming that people who use government programs are “dependent” on the government and incapable. 30% of Medicaid and food stamps recipients are off the programs WITHIN A YEAR and a majority(56%) are off within 3. These programs exist to help people in adverse circumstances, not make them dependent on the government.
Yeah, I'm not a conspiracy theorist so not going to entertain the idea of a fed reserve conspiracy.
How does wanting to ban a type of gun violate your 2nd amendment rights? 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about the right to have assault weapons with large magazines. By your logic, Americans should be able to buy bazookas, tanks, missiles, whatever is needed to protect themselves right? I mean why can't Americans have nuclear weapons? It is clearly within the 2nd amendment rights.
How does wanting to ban a type of gun violate your 2nd amendment rights? 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about the right to have assault weapons with large magazines. By your logic, Americans should be able to buy bazookas, tanks, missiles, whatever is needed to protect themselves right? I mean why can't Americans have nuclear weapons? It is clearly within the 2nd amendment rights.
So being poor is a personal choice by your logic. Those born into wealth are somehow harder working than their poor counterpart who was born into poverty?Cool. I want to see minorities do well in this country. I do not believe they are inferior in any way. It's frustrating though when my thoughts on how they can achieve success is shot down as being racists. Poor people have the same common denominator and it has nothing to do with race. It has to do with making good decisions and accepting personal responsibility. Some people are given better starts in life than others. Life isn't fair. But anyone can do pretty well for themselves if they graduate high school, get a job, and don't have kids outside of marriage.
aww so it's the money. Well what if nuclear bombs came down in price and you could purchase one for a few thousand dollars. Should the 2nd amendment allow them to buy such weapons?The first amendment doesn't say anything specifically about your right to shitpost, but you'd probably be pretty upset if Drumpf took away your ability to do it.
I fully agree with you that an American should be able to buy whatever the hell they want. If you're so goddam stupid you think an American is going to scrounge together tens of millions of dollars and go to their local WalMart to buy a nuclear bomb, I don't know what to tell you.
aww so it's the money. Well what if nuclear bombs came down in price and you could purchase one for a few thousand dollars. Should the 2nd amendment allow them to buy such weapons?
A week later and this post is even more wrong than when we earlier discussed it. New information came out that Facebook gave the data to the Obama campaign for free. That is not allowed according to FEC regulations and is in violation of the law.
By your logic, Americans should be able to buy bazookas, tanks, missiles
So being poor is a personal choice by your logic. Those born into wealth are somehow harder working than their poor counterpart who was born into poverty?
I mean I know it's hard to believe, but there are actually poor people who work and work hard. They probably work harder than most rich people. If I have a million dollars I can invest that and become richer. Yet I didn't actually 'work hard' or have some inherent trait that automatically makes me a better person than a poor person who works hard every day but continues to be poor.
The baby's eyes tell the story. Even the baby is smart enough to know that this is wrong.Creepy Joe really knows how to hold'em
![]()
An Assault weapon was not used in the Florida school shooting.How does wanting to ban a type of gun violate your 2nd amendment rights? 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about the right to have assault weapons with large magazines. By your logic, Americans should be able to buy bazookas, tanks, missiles, whatever is needed to protect themselves right? I mean why can't Americans have nuclear weapons? It is clearly within the 2nd amendment rights.
http://bgr.com/2018/02/24/lawyer-wwii-tank-hoa-rules/amp/
Hero lawyer exploits HOA loophole and parks his WWII tank on the street
Tension between HOAs and people with exotic vehicle collections are nothing new, but one Texas lawyer took things to the extreme last year when he decided to park a WWII-era Sherman tank on the street outside his house for a month. The HOA was understandably angry, but as owner Tony Buzbee put pointed out, they can’t exactly tow it.
Buzbee, a Texas-area lawyer, bought the tank in France from a closing-down museum, and had it imported for a total cost of $600,000. His eventual objective was to take it to his ranch and use it to “drive over things,” but right after import, he decided to park it outside his house to show his neighbors who’s boss.
As you’d imagine, the HOA wasn’t enamoured with the plan, but there was nothing they could actually do. The vehicle was parked on a city street, and the local cops even helped him put it there. Security for the neighborhood, River Oaks, even helped cone it off. And, since there was no HOA rule specifically prohibiting military storage on the street outside a house, the HOA couldn’t actually do anything.