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.

"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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.