Any Bleeding Hearts Against Execution Of The Sniper?

[Chubs]

Originally posted by: Ornery
"...lesser of two evils"

Oh brother! He dies or I die, and if I choose to live, it's the lesser of two evils!

The cost to put this POS to death is probably a fraction of what was spent and lost trying to catch them!

I think you miss the point entirely. The poster was probably trying to point out that killing isn't a good thing to do. But sometimes, it's the only choice left to us. If you think killing is a good thing, then you need to reset your moral compass.

I'm normally against the death penalty because it gets applied badly very often. In this case, however, the two snipers have shown a high disregard for the value of life and are therefore an iminent risk to any population they are in - including prison populations. They really haven't left us any choice but to remove them from our gene pool.

 

[Chubs]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
funny. ornery is "going the liberal route" in appealing to emotion again. how many late term abortions are there? ah yes, a small percentage of the whole, and for good reason. it is done in extreme situations.

no ones going to argue that an hour before birth the baby becomes viable. the problem is that some people don't see a line between a fertilized egg and a 9 month old.

that being said, people don't abort 9 month olds unless the mothers life is in danger or the baby is either still born or is a victim of extreme malformation.

in any case, your arguement that a fetus is the same as a full person is shaky at best.

I would take that farther and say people NEVER abort 9 month olds - they have them delivered. Abort implies the end of a life.

 

[slaman]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Those who are so hungry for blood may want to consider cannibalism as a form of entertainment. As long as these killers are where they can kill again, what difference does it make if you kill them? Those who consider themselves as "conservatives" may want to remember that it costs more to execute murderers than to keep them locked up for life without parole.

No it doesn't lol - where do you get your information from? It costs $40 000 a YEAR to keep a prisoner locked up and fed. If he spends 50 years in prison, well, let's just say it does NOT cost $2 million to kill someone.

Something to think about: punish those who disrespect humanity by committing the same acts on them. Hypocrisy?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: slaman

Originally posted by: Harvey
Those who are so hungry for blood may want to consider cannibalism as a form of entertainment. As long as these killers are where they can kill again, what difference does it make if you kill them? Those who consider themselves as "conservatives" may want to remember that it costs more to execute murderers than to keep them locked up for life without parole.

No it doesn't lol - where do you get your information from? It costs $40 000 a YEAR to keep a prisoner locked up and fed. If he spends 50 years in prison, well, let's just say it does NOT cost $2 million to kill someone.

Something to think about: punish those who disrespect humanity by committing the same acts on them. Hypocrisy?

Are you sure? You might want to do a Google search on cost comparisons between the two.

 

[slaman]

$105.63

 

[0roo0roo]

Although the costs of incarceration are expensive (about $20,000 per year per inmate), that amounts to $600,000 to $800,000 depending on whether a person lives 30 or 40 years after their sentencing. The death penalty, on the other hand, costs about $2 million per executionhttp://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/DPQuiz.html#A.1F

 

[Gaard]

slaman - see the post above ^