| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Romney loves the death penalty
As long as he has stupid people who'll vote for him no matter what he says, Mitt doesn't need to know the truth... Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney on Tuesday asserted that the death penalty prevented “the most heinous crimes.” During a town hall event in Grand Junction, Colorado, a man who identified himself a “the local D.A.” asked Romney to respond to a recent Supreme Court ruling that banned mandatory life sentences for minors who are convicted of murder. Instead of taking a position on the Supreme Court ruling, the former Massachusetts governor took the opportunity to express his support for capital punishment. “I realize that this wasn’t a death penalty case… but I happen to believe that the death penalty tends to prevent some of the most heinous crimes,” Romney said, pausing for the audience to cheer. “And I also believe that the prison terms that are of the nature you describe can also prevent some of the most heinous crimes from occurring,” the candidate continued. “I believe in this case, the Supreme Court was looking at the age of the offender. Boy, I’ll tell you, a 17 year old, a setting like that just breaks my heart. I’ll look at the particular case.” “But I can tell you, I’m someone who comes down on the side of swift and severe punishment for those who commit these serious crimes.” According to the Death Penalty Information Center, non-death penalty states had a 25 percent lower murder rate than states with the death penalty in 2010. In fact, states without a death penalty have had consistently lower murder rates every year for the last 20 years. A 2009 study (PDF) published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology found that 88 percent of the country’s top criminologists did not believe the death penalty was a deterrent. |
Romney loves the death penalty
"jps" wrote in message ...
As long as he has stupid people who'll vote for him no matter what he says, Mitt doesn't need to know the truth... Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney on Tuesday asserted that the death penalty prevented “the most heinous crimes.” During a town hall event in Grand Junction, Colorado, a man who identified himself a “the local D.A.” asked Romney to respond to a recent Supreme Court ruling that banned mandatory life sentences for minors who are convicted of murder. Instead of taking a position on the Supreme Court ruling, the former Massachusetts governor took the opportunity to express his support for capital punishment. “I realize that this wasn’t a death penalty case… but I happen to believe that the death penalty tends to prevent some of the most heinous crimes,” Romney said, pausing for the audience to cheer. “And I also believe that the prison terms that are of the nature you describe can also prevent some of the most heinous crimes from occurring,” the candidate continued. “I believe in this case, the Supreme Court was looking at the age of the offender. Boy, I’ll tell you, a 17 year old, a setting like that just breaks my heart. I’ll look at the particular case.” “But I can tell you, I’m someone who comes down on the side of swift and severe punishment for those who commit these serious crimes.” According to the Death Penalty Information Center, non-death penalty states had a 25 percent lower murder rate than states with the death penalty in 2010. In fact, states without a death penalty have had consistently lower murder rates every year for the last 20 years. A 2009 study (PDF) published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology found that 88 percent of the country’s top criminologists did not believe the death penalty was a deterrent. ------------------------------------------- Other than Texas, and I am not sure about them, but we really do not have a Death Penalty. Sure, they get sentenced to Death, but the most likely cause of death is old age. A friend of ours daughter was kidnapped, tortured, murdered. The couple was convicted of the murder and sentenced to death in 2002. they are still 2 of 748 on California's death row. We would be financially a lot better off, just sentencing them to Life without parole. Even better if we could bring back hard labor. Would be a huge deterrent to murder. A life of non-ease in prison. Maybe those states without a death penalty have less overall gang activity. |
Romney loves the death penalty
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. |
Romney loves the death penalty
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. |
Romney loves the death penalty
"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. |
Romney loves the death penalty
On 7/11/2012 1:58 PM, 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. JPS was counting on you not looking it up. |
Romney loves the death penalty
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. |
Romney loves the death penalty
"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. |
Romney loves the death penalty
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. |
Romney loves the death penalty
"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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:12 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com