"jps" wrote in message ...

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 14:07:06 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message ...

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:58:58 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message ...

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 19:40:03 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

wrote in message ...

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:05:50 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney on Tuesday
asserted that the death penalty prevented “the most heinous crimes.�

This is what bothers me most about this loonie tune. He just is SOOOOO
disconnected with reality. Not even misdeal torture and death ever
dissuaded criminals from their criminal intent.

Certainly, the death penalty is perfect in its attempt to eradicate
recidivism (and I have no problem with that, if we have the right
person), but it has NEVER been successful at PREVENTING crime,
ESPECIALLY heinous crime.

Heinous crimes are committed by people divorced from reality, thus
fear of rational punishment never appears on their radar screen. Why
would we want a president that doesn't grasp the obvious?
------------------------------------------
Why would you say it never prevented crime? I bet there was a lot less
cattle rustling in the old days when the trial was short and they hung
you
in a few days if that long. Basically we do not have a death penalty
now.
When it takes 20+ years if not more to execute a person, where is the
penalty.

Oh wow, you had to cite cattle rustling to make your point stick?

You obviously didn't read the article. It clearly states that states
with the death penalty have higher rates of murder than those without.

Please reread and learn something, Bill.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
You please learn something. Theres lies, damn lies, and statistics. We
really do not have a death penalty in this country. Sure we sentence
people
to death, but how many actually get executed? There have been a total of
1300 since 1976. 43 in 2011. As to murder rates. Texas has 5 per
100,000
and a death penalty. Illinois has no death penalty and a 5.5 per 100,00
rate. sort of blows your argument right there. Then we have Washington
DC.
No death penalty, gun control and and a murder rate of 24 per 100,000.

Which should tell your feeble mind that death penalty law has nothing
whatsoever to do with murder rates and prevention.

You cherry pick statistics to make your point? You're going backwards
from your "cattle rustler" analogy. Maybe you should start citing the
crusades.
----------------------------------------------------------
You seem to be the feeble minded. Death penalty does prevent a killer from
killing again outside prison. But, I also stated we really do not have a
death penalty anymore, not matter what the law says. My last Jury call was
a Murder 1 death penalty case. As I told the judge, I can go either way on
the death penalty. One we really do not have one, and 2nd. It costs a few
million to execute those we do. So the cost would be a lot less just
warehousing them. I would prefer that they have a life of hard labor.
Breaking rocks in the hot sun as a song stated.

You're talking about the difference between the death penalty and some
other sentence - in other words, people who are eligible for parole.
Lifers who do henious murders that would otherwise be sentenced to
death are unlikely to be paroled.

Murderers who draw lighter sentences who are eligible and make parole
are who you're talking about.

Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with whether states have a
death penalty or not.

Bill, thick, skull.
--------------------------------------

Maybe thick, but not stupid like yours. Most states have life without
parole.

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 17:05:19 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message ...

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 14:07:06 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message ...

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:58:58 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message ...

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 19:40:03 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

wrote in message ...

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:05:50 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney on Tuesday
asserted that the death penalty prevented “the most heinous crimes.”

This is what bothers me most about this loonie tune. He just is SOOOOO
disconnected with reality. Not even misdeal torture and death ever
dissuaded criminals from their criminal intent.

Certainly, the death penalty is perfect in its attempt to eradicate
recidivism (and I have no problem with that, if we have the right
person), but it has NEVER been successful at PREVENTING crime,
ESPECIALLY heinous crime.

Heinous crimes are committed by people divorced from reality, thus
fear of rational punishment never appears on their radar screen. Why
would we want a president that doesn't grasp the obvious?
------------------------------------------
Why would you say it never prevented crime? I bet there was a lot less
cattle rustling in the old days when the trial was short and they hung
you
in a few days if that long. Basically we do not have a death penalty
now.
When it takes 20+ years if not more to execute a person, where is the
penalty.

Oh wow, you had to cite cattle rustling to make your point stick?

You obviously didn't read the article. It clearly states that states
with the death penalty have higher rates of murder than those without.

Please reread and learn something, Bill.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
You please learn something. Theres lies, damn lies, and statistics. We
really do not have a death penalty in this country. Sure we sentence
people
to death, but how many actually get executed? There have been a total of
1300 since 1976. 43 in 2011. As to murder rates. Texas has 5 per
100,000
and a death penalty. Illinois has no death penalty and a 5.5 per 100,00
rate. sort of blows your argument right there. Then we have Washington
DC.
No death penalty, gun control and and a murder rate of 24 per 100,000.

Which should tell your feeble mind that death penalty law has nothing
whatsoever to do with murder rates and prevention.

You cherry pick statistics to make your point? You're going backwards
from your "cattle rustler" analogy. Maybe you should start citing the
crusades.
----------------------------------------------------------
You seem to be the feeble minded. Death penalty does prevent a killer from
killing again outside prison. But, I also stated we really do not have a
death penalty anymore, not matter what the law says. My last Jury call was
a Murder 1 death penalty case. As I told the judge, I can go either way on
the death penalty. One we really do not have one, and 2nd. It costs a few
million to execute those we do. So the cost would be a lot less just
warehousing them. I would prefer that they have a life of hard labor.
Breaking rocks in the hot sun as a song stated.

You're talking about the difference between the death penalty and some
other sentence - in other words, people who are eligible for parole.
Lifers who do henious murders that would otherwise be sentenced to
death are unlikely to be paroled.

Murderers who draw lighter sentences who are eligible and make parole
are who you're talking about.

Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with whether states have a
death penalty or not.

Bill, thick, skull.
--------------------------------------

Maybe thick, but not stupid like yours. Most states have life without
parole.


You didn't argue the point. I understand since you don't have an
argument worth fielding.

Simply put, there is no correlation to be made between murder rates in
states that have the death penalty and states that do not.

Hence, the death penalty is not a deterrent, as Mitt Romney maintains.

Simple, eh?

Mitt is a ****ing douchebag who'll say anything.