tiny dancer wrote:
"Bo Raxo" wrote in message
ups.com...

tiny dancer wrote:
snipped

Thanks for the update on this one. Another one of those cases where the
death penalty should be *streamlined*. Once they are found guilty and
sentenced to die, give 'em one appeal and then stick the needle in 'em.
Just *my* opinion, of course.


Yeah, that'll bring the Hawks back to life, right? And make the
streets safer than if Skylar Deleon spends the rest of his life in
prison.

And there is no chance whatsoever that a 25 year old could grow and
change over the next two or three decades, doing good by working with
fellow inmates or convincing young people to not make the mistakes he
did. Like *some* other inmates who committed heinous crimes in their
youth have managed to do.

Nope, you say we might as well throw that life away as garbage. Must
be great to be able to see in to the future and know with such
certainty whether a person will ever be able to change and ever be able
to do any good for his fellow man. I don't know where one finds such
certainty about human nature and the future, but somehow I think it
comes from a place to which I wouldn't want to go.


Bo Raxo


You have your *opinions* and I have mine.

But there are open-minded folks out there (one or two) who might be
swayed by my arguments.

Or yours.

Some crimes are so atrocious, so
hideous, committed by sociopaths.

Exactly how hideous does it have to be to let you play God? Or a
person in a black robe? Or 12 people off the street?

You just don't get it bo.

So much for the "you have your opinion" approach.

Who gives a
flying **** about 'doing good for their fellow man'?

I do, obviously. Just because *you* don't, it isn't fair to say
*nobody* does. Obviously, *somebody* does. Or do you think I'm the
only person who is opposed to the death penalty?

Criminals like
Deleon, Joseph Duncan, Charles Ng, gave up their right to a *future* when
they cold bloodedly killed totally and completely INNOCENT VICTIMS.

I don't think life is a right that can be forfeited. It is inalienable
and irrevocable, in my opinion.

The
Hawks never got to see their grandchild. Remember him? The one they were
selling their boat so they could spend time with the new grandchild. Shasta
Groene will NEVER get back her innocence lost. She will NEVER get back her
brother/s or her mom. The *victims* had no choice in the matter. Those who
perpetrated the crimes/killings did.

That justifies a severe punishment, it doesn't justify killing them.

And you live in a fantasy world. In your fantasy land, governments are
fair and wise, prosecutors restrained, everyone gets a fair trial and
nobody gets framed by crooked cops and ambitious d.a.s In your
fantasy, the death penalty is only used when it is absoloutely certain
the person did the crime. Heck, why not add that if they make a
mistake, the court will bring the dead man back to life, since you're
in a fantasy world anyway.

Out here in the real world the court system is adversarial and d.a.'s
run in elections. They go for the strongest penalties they can get
when the crime is heinous because the public demands it.

Now read that carefully: not "when guilt is unquestionable", but "when
the crime is heinous". That's a reality. That will never change. You
MUST judge the death penalty with that unchangeable fact in mind,
because if you don't, you're waving your magic wand and making the real
world disappear for fantasy land.


Bo Raxo

Bo Raxo wrote:


I don't think life is a right that can be forfeited. It is inalienable
and irrevocable, in my opinion.


Thats right! The Hawks lives were inalienable, and irrevocable in my
opinion too

That justifies a severe punishment, it doesn't justify killing them.

It does to me.


Now read that carefully: not "when guilt is unquestionable", but "when
the crime is heinous". That's a reality. That will never change. You
MUST judge the death penalty with that unchangeable fact in mind,
because if you don't, you're waving your magic wand and making the real
world disappear for fantasy land.

I have, and I support it. BTW, I dont' ahve a magic wand.

wrote:
Bo Raxo wrote:


I don't think life is a right that can be forfeited. It is inalienable
and irrevocable, in my opinion.


Thats right! The Hawks lives were inalienable, and irrevocable in my
opinion too

Okay, ,we agree so far. So if it's wrong to take a human life (except
in self defense), then it's wrong whether the life belongs to a couple
of retirees or a couple of cold-blooded killers.

After all, wrong is wrong. And two wrongs don't make a right.


Bo Raxo

Bo Raxo wrote:
wrote:
Bo Raxo wrote:


I don't think life is a right that can be forfeited. It is inalienable
and irrevocable, in my opinion.


Thats right! The Hawks lives were inalienable, and irrevocable in my
opinion too

Okay, ,we agree so far. So if it's wrong to take a human life (except
in self defense), then it's wrong whether the life belongs to a couple
of retirees or a couple of cold-blooded killers.

After all, wrong is wrong. And two wrongs don't make a right.

I don't see it that way.


Bo, I don't thinkt hat the "Killers" had any respect for life at all.
let alone their own.


Sorry pard, the only people listed here who had the right to "life,
liberty, and the persuit of happiness," were the victims, of those who
cold bloodedly forfieted their (Hawks)rights, for them.

I'm sorry, well, not really..but I can't follow your sympathy for the
criminals listed.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Bo Raxo wrote:
wrote:
Bo Raxo wrote:


I don't think life is a right that can be forfeited. It is
inalienable
and irrevocable, in my opinion.


Thats right! The Hawks lives were inalienable, and irrevocable in my
opinion too

Okay, ,we agree so far. So if it's wrong to take a human life (except
in self defense), then it's wrong whether the life belongs to a couple
of retirees or a couple of cold-blooded killers.

After all, wrong is wrong. And two wrongs don't make a right.

I don't see it that way.


Bo, I don't thinkt hat the "Killers" had any respect for life at all.
let alone their own.


Sorry pard, the only people listed here who had the right to "life,
liberty, and the persuit of happiness," were the victims, of those who
cold bloodedly forfieted their (Hawks)rights, for them.

I'm sorry, well, not really..but I can't follow your sympathy for the
criminals listed.


My practical view is that we ought to eliminate the death penalty. Costs
too much to execute them. 10-15 times the cost to keep them the rest of
their lives. That said, we can have special prisons for them. No TV, no
library, no radio. Get to sit in their cells 23 hours a day.

On 9 Nov 2006 22:59:32 -0800, "Bo Raxo" wrote:


wrote:
Bo Raxo wrote:


I don't think life is a right that can be forfeited. It is inalienable
and irrevocable, in my opinion.


Thats right! The Hawks lives were inalienable, and irrevocable in my
opinion too

Okay, ,we agree so far. So if it's wrong to take a human life (except
in self defense), then it's wrong whether the life belongs to a couple
of retirees or a couple of cold-blooded killers.

After all, wrong is wrong. And two wrongs don't make a right.


Bo Raxo

And does that same philosophy apply to partial birth abortions?

Bo Raxo wrote:
wrote:
Bo Raxo wrote:

I don't think life is a right that can be forfeited. It is inalienable
and irrevocable, in my opinion.

Thats right! The Hawks lives were inalienable, and irrevocable in my
opinion too

Okay, ,we agree so far. So if it's wrong to take a human life (except
in self defense), then it's wrong whether the life belongs to a couple
of retirees or a couple of cold-blooded killers.

After all, wrong is wrong. And two wrongs don't make a right.

That's where you make the error, Bo. We want to take the lives of the
DeLeons and Machains, the Ted Bundys, the Charles Chat Ngs, and other
premeditated murderers because we are _protecting_ the lives of
innumerable others.

Executing these psychopaths means they can never get out of jail because
they've convinced a bleeding heart like you that they've "reformed". Or
they might escape. Ted Bundy managed to escape from jail, not once but
twice, and continued to kill after he had escaped.

Bo Raxo wrote:
wrote:
Bo Raxo wrote:

I don't think life is a right that can be forfeited. It is inalienable
and irrevocable, in my opinion.

Thats right! The Hawks lives were inalienable, and irrevocable in my
opinion too

Okay, ,we agree so far. So if it's wrong to take a human life (except
in self defense), then it's wrong whether the life belongs to a couple
of retirees or a couple of cold-blooded killers.

After all, wrong is wrong. And two wrongs don't make a right.


Bo Raxo



I used to be for the death penalty, but as I've gotten older I've
changed my mind because (in descending order):
1) I don't trust our justice system to deliver the right verdict
100% of the time. 99% of the time is not nearly good enough. (do a
search sometime on "The Innocence Project")
2) Being in favor of the death penalty weakens my argument being
pro-life.
3) I am a fiscal conservative, and death penalties are much more
costly to execute than are LWOP.

Since you are invoking a moral argument, I'm gonna quote from the Bible;
the New Testament just to make sure you don't think I'm quoting ancient
Jewish law that might not be relevant. In Romans chapter 13:4, Paul
says, "For he [the ruler] is God's servant to do you good. But if you do
wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is
God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment to the wrongdoer."
The sword here is a reference to the death penalty, and God grants
authority to the government to take the life of a criminal as
punishment. (my personal issue is whether the government can always
determine correctly who is the criminal.)

Machain and Deleon forfeited their own rights to life when they murdered
the Hawks. Whether they are punished by death or by LWOP is an
important technicality, but that's all it is -- a technicality. The
state has no obligation to offer them a chance at redemption.

This case is also a good cautionary tale about why the Captain and Mate
on a sea vessel should always carry a sidearm.

Best regards,
Bob

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:00:41 -0600, zxcvbob wrote:

snip
Since you are invoking a moral argument, I'm gonna quote from the Bible;
the New Testament just to make sure you don't think I'm quoting ancient
Jewish law that might not be relevant.

Since when has ancient Jewish law become any less relevant than ancient
Christian law?
--

L8r,
Uncle Clover

************************************************

In my experience, one's degree of wisdom tends
to bear an exponentially inverse relationship
to one's outpouring of words.

Clearly, I've a _long_ way to go... ;-)

************************************************

The true mark of a civilized society is that its
citizens know how to hate each other peacefully.

************************************************

Uncle Clover wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:00:41 -0600, zxcvbob wrote:

snip
Since you are invoking a moral argument, I'm gonna quote from the Bible;
the New Testament just to make sure you don't think I'm quoting ancient
Jewish law that might not be relevant.

Since when has ancient Jewish law become any less relevant than ancient
Christian law?
--

L8r,
Uncle Clover


Good point. It made sense in my head, but doesn't make sense so much
when I read it out loud. I probably should have left out that comment
starting with the semicolon, then maybe given a reference or two from
Leviticus (not necessarily quoted though; to much scripture would come
across as being preachy). Thanks for the critique.

Bob