Mark Thorson wrote:
> All it takes is one jerk to ruin it for everybody.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2040000

They could simply place restrictions on it instead.

On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 20:56:08 -0800, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

> All it takes is one jerk to ruin it for everybody.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2040000

That guy, especially, deserved nothing better than a few ice-cubes for
his last meal. However, last meals don't have to be gluttonous
orgies. Prisoners can be given choices and the prison cook/warden can
decide what would be a reasonable portion.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On 9/22/2011 11:56 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
> All it takes is one jerk to ruin it for everybody.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2040000

Read that article on Google News. I recall reading some years past that
the 'final meal' was limited to what the prison kitchen was able to
provide - nothing special - no out of prison provision(s) - etc. Makes
sense that the condemned convict doesn't deserve/get more than the
victim did.

Sky

--

Ultra Ultimate Kitchen Rule - Use the Timer!
Ultimate Kitchen Rule -- Cook's Choice!!

All it takes is one jerk to ruin it for everybody.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2040000

Mark Thorson wrote:
> All it takes is one jerk to ruin it for everybody.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2040000

Ugh. An overstuffed, overfed dead body is *not* something I'd want to
have to deal with.
I wonder if this condemned man intended on being as unpleasant in death
to his jailers as he must have been in life?

"Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
...
> All it takes is one jerk to ruin it for everybody.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2040000


I don't think death row inmates should be accorded fancy meals. But as Sky
pointed out, the meal should be from what is available at the prison kitchen
facilities. But what's the point of gorging yourself on food when they're
about to kill you? Probably a last minute F* you to the system.

I did enjoy that book with last meals listed. I have a twisted sense of
curiosity.

Jill

On Sep 23, 7:20*am, Goomba > wrote:
> Mark Thorson wrote:
> > All it takes is one jerk to ruin it for everybody.
>
> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2040000
>
> Ugh. An overstuffed, overfed dead body is *not* something I'd want to
> have to deal with.
> I wonder if this condemned man intended on being as unpleasant in death
> to his jailers as he must have been in life?

The afterward stench.....barf!!

On Sep 22, 11:16*pm, "DavidW" > wrote:
> Mark Thorson wrote:
> > All it takes is one jerk to ruin it for everybody.
>
> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2040000
>
> They could simply place restrictions on it instead.


It's Texas. Be grateful that the guy they executed was actually
guilty.

On Sep 23, 11:35*am, Christopher Helms > wrote:
> On Sep 22, 11:16*pm, "DavidW" > wrote:
>
> > Mark Thorson wrote:
> > > All it takes is one jerk to ruin it for everybody.
>
> > >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2040000
>
> > They could simply place restrictions on it instead.
>
> It's Texas. Be grateful that the guy they executed was actually
> guilty.

I look for the day when the death penalty is totally abolished.

On Sep 23, 9:40*am, rosie > wrote:
> On Sep 23, 11:35*am, Christopher *Helms > wrote:
>
> > On Sep 22, 11:16*pm, "DavidW" > wrote:
>
> > > Mark Thorson wrote:
> > > > All it takes is one jerk to ruin it for everybody.
>
> > > >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2040000
>
> > > They could simply place restrictions on it instead.
>
> > It's Texas. Be grateful that the guy they executed was actually
> > guilty.
>
> I look for the day when the death penalty is totally abolished.

I look for the day when we don't have to wait years and years before
we execute. I suppose if you husband and kids were brutally murdered,
you'd still want the killer to get life in prison? Three meals a day,
all the sex they want, drugs, tv...

On Sep 23, 11:03*am, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> rosie wrote:
>
> > On Sep 23, 11:35 am, Christopher *Helms > wrote:
>
> > > It's Texas. Be grateful that the guy they executed was actually
> > > guilty.
>
> > I look for the day when the death penalty is totally abolished.
>
> I was pro-death penalty until I read about this case:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham
>
> That tipped me over. *If the only way to stop Texas
> from executing innocent people is to ban it nationally,
> I'm in favor of that.

No system is perfect but if you want to pay to house some murderer
then go for it. I say, one appeal with 6 months and then kill 'em. Use
a 50 cent bullet and quit being all sensitive with this lethal
injection crap. Either a bullet or the rope.

On Sep 23, 11:55*am, Chemo the Clown > wrote:
> On Sep 23, 9:40*am, rosie > wrote:
>
> > On Sep 23, 11:35*am, Christopher *Helms > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 22, 11:16*pm, "DavidW" > wrote:
>
> > > > Mark Thorson wrote:
> > > > > All it takes is one jerk to ruin it for everybody.
>
> > > > >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2040000
>
> > > > They could simply place restrictions on it instead.
>
> > > It's Texas. Be grateful that the guy they executed was actually
> > > guilty.
>
> > I look for the day when the death penalty is totally abolished.
>
> I look for the day when we don't have to wait years and years before
> we execute. I suppose if you husband and kids were brutally murdered,
> you'd still want the killer to get life in prison? Three meals a day,
> all the sex they want, drugs, tv...
I think I would be devestated if something of that sort happened.
However, I do not believe death penalty is the way to deal with a
crime. We all die anyway, if we can give them life with out parole, it
can be pretty bad. As for the food, I doubt very much if iit is all
that tasty. Sex? Well.. I am not sure if it is all that pleasant in
prison.And on a practical note, it costs more to go through a death
penalty phase with all the hoopla that goes with it than it does to
house them the rest of their lives.

On Sep 23, 1:03*pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> rosie wrote:
>
> > On Sep 23, 11:35 am, Christopher *Helms > wrote:
>
> > > It's Texas. Be grateful that the guy they executed was actually
> > > guilty.
>
> > I look for the day when the death penalty is totally abolished.
>
> I was pro-death penalty until I read about this case:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham
>
> That tipped me over. *If the only way to stop Texas
> from executing innocent people is to ban it nationally,
> I'm in favor of that.

Very few countries still use death penalty. I wish the US was
one.There are worse things then death.

On Sep 23, 10:20*am, rosie > wrote:
> On Sep 23, 11:55*am, Chemo the Clown > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 23, 9:40*am, rosie > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 23, 11:35*am, Christopher *Helms > wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 22, 11:16*pm, "DavidW" > wrote:
>
> > > > > Mark Thorson wrote:
> > > > > > All it takes is one jerk to ruin it for everybody.
>
> > > > > >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2040000
>
> > > > > They could simply place restrictions on it instead.
>
> > > > It's Texas. Be grateful that the guy they executed was actually
> > > > guilty.
>
> > > I look for the day when the death penalty is totally abolished.
>
> > I look for the day when we don't have to wait years and years before
> > we execute. I suppose if you husband and kids were brutally murdered,
> > you'd still want the killer to get life in prison? Three meals a day,
> > all the sex they want, drugs, tv...
>
> I think I would be devestated if something of that sort happened.
> However, I do not believe death penalty is the way to deal with a
> crime. We all die anyway, if we can give them life with out parole, it
> can be pretty bad. As for the food, I doubt very much if iit is all
> that tasty. Sex? Well.. I am not sure if it is all that pleasant in
> prison.And on a practical note, it costs more to go through a death
> penalty phase with all the hoopla that goes with it than it does to
> house them the rest of their lives.

I think the average cost to house a criminal is around $50K a year. If
the perp was 21 when he murdered an entire family just for fun of it
and he lives to be 90...well, you do the math. We have become so soft
on crime it's disgusting. I wonder if you're family was brutally
killed, would you forgive the guy and say...let's just let him live
out his life in a warm cell with three squares a day? Career criminals
actually like jail. If someone killed my family, I'd be in line to
pull the latch and I would never forgive them.

Christopher Helms wrote:
>
> On Sep 22, 11:16 pm, "DavidW" > wrote:
> > Mark Thorson wrote:
> > > All it takes is one jerk to ruin it for everybody.
> >
> > >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2040000
> >
> > They could simply place restrictions on it instead.
>
> It's Texas. Be grateful that the guy they executed was actually
> guilty.

Yes, they try to keep it more than 2 out of 3.

rosie wrote:
>
> On Sep 23, 11:35 am, Christopher Helms > wrote:
> >
> > It's Texas. Be grateful that the guy they executed was actually
> > guilty.
>
> I look for the day when the death penalty is totally abolished.

I was pro-death penalty until I read about this case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham

That tipped me over. If the only way to stop Texas
from executing innocent people is to ban it nationally,
I'm in favor of that.

On Sep 23, 12:20*pm, rosie > wrote:
> On Sep 23, 11:55*am, Chemo the Clown > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 23, 9:40*am, rosie > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 23, 11:35*am, Christopher *Helms > wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 22, 11:16*pm, "DavidW" > wrote:
>
> > > > > Mark Thorson wrote:
> > > > > > All it takes is one jerk to ruin it for everybody.
>
> > > > > >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2040000
>
> > > > > They could simply place restrictions on it instead.
>
> > > > It's Texas. Be grateful that the guy they executed was actually
> > > > guilty.
>
> > > I look for the day when the death penalty is totally abolished.
>
> > I look for the day when we don't have to wait years and years before
> > we execute. I suppose if you husband and kids were brutally murdered,
> > you'd still want the killer to get life in prison? Three meals a day,
> > all the sex they want, drugs, tv...
>
> I think I would be devestated if something of that sort happened.
> However, I do not believe death penalty is the way to deal with a
> crime. We all die anyway, if we can give them life with out parole, it
> can be pretty bad. As for the food, I doubt very much if iit is all
> that tasty. Sex? Well.. I am not sure if it is all that pleasant in
> prison.And on a practical note, it costs more to go through a death
> penalty phase with all the hoopla that goes with it than it does to
> house them the rest of their lives.


The rumor is that the sex in prison is not pleasant, not expected and
they don't really care if you're interested in that sort of thing or
not.

On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 10:03:14 -0800, Mark Thorson wrote:

> rosie wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 23, 11:35 am, Christopher Helms > wrote:
>>>
>>> It's Texas. Be grateful that the guy they executed was actually
>>> guilty.
>>
>> I look for the day when the death penalty is totally abolished.
>
> I was pro-death penalty until I read about this case:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham
>
> That tipped me over. If the only way to stop Texas
> from executing innocent people is to ban it nationally,
> I'm in favor of that.

Innocent people do get charged with crimes they didn't commit, and innocent
people die or spend their lives behind bars, but that's no reason to stop
punishing the truly guilty.

Some of you people must have lived very sheltered lives. I grew up on the
mean streets. There are people out there with no regard for human life.
They will kill you for your shoes.

When those people take another's life, they deserve to die.

That's all, I'm done...
TFM®

Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> I was pro-death penalty until I read about this case:

I was pro execution when I thought about how many executed people ever
came back to repeat their crimes. The number is amazingly low.

I was anti execution when I learned that it costs more to execute a
prisoner than it does to keep them in prison for the rest of their lives.

If it's about quarantine to prevent repeat offences then it does not
have to be about revenge or justice. Then it can be about the cost of
the quarantine against the cost of an absolute guarantee against repeat
offenses. I'm not fully in one camp or the other but I think in cases
where the guilt is not in doubt I don't think the discussion runs in the
right direction. This time guilt was in doubt, argh.

On Sep 23, 1:44*pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> Chemo the Clown wrote:
>
> > No system is perfect but if you want to pay to house some murderer
> > then go for it. I say, one appeal with 6 months and then kill 'em. Use
> > a 50 cent bullet and quit being all sensitive with this lethal
> > injection crap. Either a bullet or the rope.
>
> That's cheaper in China, but not the U.S.
> Here, a life sentence w/o parole is cheaper
> than execution.

Got some stats for that?

On 23/09/2011 3:12 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
> Mark Thorson wrote:
>>
>> I was pro-death penalty until I read about this case:
>
> I was pro execution when I thought about how many executed people ever
> came back to repeat their crimes. The number is amazingly low.

Is it that low? I just checked some Canadian stats for recidivism rates.
A study tracked parolees for various crimes and noted recidivism rates
after one year and two years. Of 47 convicts paroled for murder, only
one returned to prison for murder within one year, 2.13%. Two more ,
4.6% went back in the second year.

There is a much higher recidivism for manslaughter, 18.2% in the first
year and 32.75% in the second year. It should be noted that murderers
often cop a plea to manslaughter rather than risk conviction on a murder
charge. Then there are the cases where they are charged with murder and
end up convicted on the lesser charge of manslaughter.


I am not a major proponent of capital punishment, but I have no
difficulty with it being applied to repeat murderers.


>
> I was anti execution when I learned that it costs more to execute a
> prisoner than it does to keep them in prison for the rest of their lives.
>
> If it's about quarantine to prevent repeat offences then it does not
> have to be about revenge or justice. Then it can be about the cost of
> the quarantine against the cost of an absolute guarantee against repeat
> offenses. I'm not fully in one camp or the other but I think in cases
> where the guilt is not in doubt I don't think the discussion runs in the
> right direction. This time guilt was in doubt, argh.

On Sep 23, 2:14*pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> Chemo the Clown wrote:
>
> > On Sep 23, 1:44 pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> > > Chemo the Clown wrote:
>
> > > > No system is perfect but if you want to pay to house some murderer
> > > > then go for it. I say, one appeal with 6 months and then kill 'em. Use
> > > > a 50 cent bullet and quit being all sensitive with this lethal
> > > > injection crap. Either a bullet or the rope.
>
> > > That's cheaper in China, but not the U.S.
> > > Here, a life sentence w/o parole is cheaper
> > > than execution.
>
> > Got some stats for that?
>
> Sure, it's been carefully studied.
>
> http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun...-death-penalty...

Whoa...interesting article.

On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 09:40:00 -0700 (PDT), rosie >
wrote:

> On Sep 23, 11:35*am, Christopher Helms > wrote:
> > On Sep 22, 11:16*pm, "DavidW" > wrote:
> >
> > > Mark Thorson wrote:
> > > > All it takes is one jerk to ruin it for everybody.
> >
> > > >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2040000
> >
> > > They could simply place restrictions on it instead.
> >
> > It's Texas. Be grateful that the guy they executed was actually
> > guilty.
>
> I look for the day when the death penalty is totally abolished.

I am for it, because in this day and age of DNA evidence - you know
when you have the guilty party. OJ was guilty.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 10:27:04 -0700 (PDT), Chemo the Clown
> wrote:

> I think the average cost to house a criminal is around $50K a year. If
> the perp was 21 when he murdered an entire family just for fun of it
> and he lives to be 90...well, you do the math

Now prisons have to deal with elderly inmates. It's becoming a big
problem.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

Chemo the Clown wrote:
>
> No system is perfect but if you want to pay to house some murderer
> then go for it. I say, one appeal with 6 months and then kill 'em. Use
> a 50 cent bullet and quit being all sensitive with this lethal
> injection crap. Either a bullet or the rope.

That's cheaper in China, but not the U.S.
Here, a life sentence w/o parole is cheaper
than execution.

sf > wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 09:40:00 -0700 (PDT), rosie >

> I am for it, because in this day and age of DNA evidence - you know
> when you have the guilty party. OJ was guilty.
>
> --
> All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

I wish that were true about DNA evidence. Unfortunately it's not the
science that's at fault, but the human system of collecting and analyzing
the evidence. There have been documented cases of police labs tampering
with DNA evidence to increase conviction rates, etc. As long as human
processes are error-prone (i.e. forever), the death penalty will kill the
innocent.

On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 16:12:55 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> On 23/09/2011 3:12 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
> > Mark Thorson wrote:
> >>
> >> I was pro-death penalty until I read about this case:
> >
> > I was pro execution when I thought about how many executed people ever
> > came back to repeat their crimes. The number is amazingly low.
>
> Is it that low? I just checked some Canadian stats for recidivism rates.
> A study tracked parolees for various crimes and noted recidivism rates
> after one year and two years. Of 47 convicts paroled for murder, only
> one returned to prison for murder within one year, 2.13%. Two more ,
> 4.6% went back in the second year.
>
> There is a much higher recidivism for manslaughter, 18.2% in the first
> year and 32.75% in the second year. It should be noted that murderers
> often cop a plea to manslaughter rather than risk conviction on a murder
> charge. Then there are the cases where they are charged with murder and
> end up convicted on the lesser charge of manslaughter.
>
>
> I am not a major proponent of capital punishment, but I have no
> difficulty with it being applied to repeat murderers.

I'm with you, but he said there is an astonishingly low rate of
recidivism for those who have been executed. Something like 0%.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

Chemo the Clown wrote:
>
> On Sep 23, 1:44 pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> > Chemo the Clown wrote:
> >
> > > No system is perfect but if you want to pay to house some murderer
> > > then go for it. I say, one appeal with 6 months and then kill 'em. Use
> > > a 50 cent bullet and quit being all sensitive with this lethal
> > > injection crap. Either a bullet or the rope.
> >
> > That's cheaper in China, but not the U.S.
> > Here, a life sentence w/o parole is cheaper
> > than execution.
>
> Got some stats for that?

Sure, it's been carefully studied.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun...costs-20110620

On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 13:30:24 -0700, sf wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 09:40:00 -0700 (PDT), rosie >
> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 23, 11:35*am, Christopher Helms > wrote:
>>> On Sep 22, 11:16*pm, "DavidW" > wrote:
>>>
>>> > Mark Thorson wrote:
>>> > > All it takes is one jerk to ruin it for everybody.
>>>
>>> > >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2040000
>>>
>>> > They could simply place restrictions on it instead.
>>>
>>> It's Texas. Be grateful that the guy they executed was actually
>>> guilty.
>>
>> I look for the day when the death penalty is totally abolished.
>
> I am for it, because in this day and age of DNA evidence - you know
> when you have the guilty party. OJ was guilty.
>
> --
> All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwTZ2xpQwpA

TFM®

Dave Smith wrote:
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>> Mark Thorson wrote:
>
>> I was pro execution when I thought about how many executed people ever
>> came back to repeat their crimes. The number is amazingly low.
>
> Is it that low? I just checked some Canadian stats for recidivism rates.

People who were executed for crimes and then returned to do the same
crime again? Really? If you're a serious Christian you may want to
suggest that Jesus incited riots before and after his crucificion.
Otherwise the answer is going to be zero. Dead people commit zero
crimes. Execution is absolutely certain insurance against repeat
offenses. When it's applied incorrectly to an innocent they still never
come back to commit a crime.

Dead people don't even get traffic tickets. Sometimes they vote but
that's really a crime by the live person commiting fraud. Not the same
thing.

> A study tracked parolees for various crimes and noted recidivism rates
> after one year and two years. Of 47 convicts paroled for murder, only
> one returned to prison for murder within one year, 2.13%. Two more ,
> 4.6% went back in the second year.

That's still far higher than how many escape from life sentences in
prison and them kill while they are out on the lamb.

> I am not a major proponent of capital punishment, but I have no
> difficulty with it being applied to repeat murderers.

I'm pretty ready to lock them up after the first one. I'm more on the
fence when it comes to an absolute certainty they will never do it
again. To me it's the price. It costs more to execute someone than to
keep them locked up for life. And the chance of escape.

On 23/09/2011 5:06 PM, sf wrote:
>
>> I'd rather be dead than spend the rest of my life in an isolation cell in
>> prison. That's why I consider life without parole to be worse than death.
>> They will die eventually... after they rot away in a ********. Works for me.
>> And the authorities can still back up and correct things if someone is found
>> to be innocent. It's a win-win IMO.
>
> Have you watched any tv at all about prison life? They sling their
> own shit at the guards. Ugh. Kill the *******s and be done with it.


It's amazing what people what people in custody will do to amuse
themselves. There are times when I envy the US for its corrections
system and chauvinism. A few years back there was a riot at a women's
prison in Canada. The female guards at the women's prison could not
quell it and they were faced with prisoners throwing buckets of shit d
**** at them.

The riot squad from the nearby men's prison was called in. They filmed
everything, presumably to assure the armchair generals that everything
was done by the book. The prisoners were strip searched, as per policy,
which meant it was conducted by women, but was filmed. The riot was put
down and order restored, but the shit hit the fan.


Those poor women prisoners were terribly traumatized by having been
strip searched in front of male guards. They were dehumanized.
Personally, I have a lot of trouble understanding how someone who had
been throwing buckets of shit at the guards could feel dehumanized.

On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 19:26:18 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> Personally, I have a lot of trouble understanding how someone who had
> been throwing buckets of shit at the guards could feel dehumanized.

There's something about the "cooking" of feces and urine that is even
more lethal. I only saw it mentioned once and I don't watch those
shows very often.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

"jmcquown" wrote:
>
>While not a maximum security facility, Shelby Farms was at one time a
>self-sustaining prison in Shelby County, TN. What food the prisoners ate,
>they raised themselves on the prison grounds. There were gardens. There
>were chickens and cows. The inmates farmed. They worked hard under that
>hot southern sun. The prisoners paid for their keep and got nutritious
>meals in return. Unfortunately, some do-gooders came along and said making
>the prisoners actually work for their upkeep was "cruel and unusual". A
>court upheld the ruling and ordered them to stop. Stupidist thing I ever
>heard of.

On Long Island the Suffolk County Jail maintains an "Honor Farm" where
low risk prisoners are housed. They produce crops and lifestock for
feeding the inmates and also supply food to the nearby County
Hospital. I've taken the tour, it's quite an operation. For
prisoners a transfer to the Honor Farm is considered a choice
assignment. They are assigned jobs, live barracks style, and get
plenty of fresh air... much better than passing their time in a tiny
cage with nothing to do. The jail is a holding facility for those
awating trial and for those with less than a year sentence. Only
those already sentenced can work at the farm... for most the farm
facilities are better than going home. The farm is located in a
fairly remote section, on several acres surrounded by the pine
barrens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Is...l_Pine_Barrens

As an aside something many don't realize is that fire is important to
the health of forests. It's very important that forests periodically
burn to the ground or they cease to be; fire is how forests are
cleansed of dead/dying/diseased trees/plants and the land sterilized,
also many seeds can't release from their pods without the intense heat
of a forest fire. To the pine barrens fire means renewal. The only
reason that many lose homes from forest fires is because they had no
business building there. Forest fire is as normal as the tides...
people are always trying to blame someone but in fact very few forest
fires are started by carelessness, during dry weather fires start all
on their own, spontaneous combustion and from lightening.

On Friday, September 23, 2011 11:55:20 AM UTC-5, Andy Tillinghast wrote:
> On Sep 23, 9:40*am, rosie > wrote:
> > On Sep 23, 11:35*am, Christopher *Helms > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sep 22, 11:16*pm, "DavidW" > wrote:
> >
> > > > Mark Thorson wrote:
> > > > > All it takes is one jerk to ruin it for everybody.
> >
> > > > >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2040000
> >
> > > > They could simply place restrictions on it instead.
> >
> > > It's Texas. Be grateful that the guy they executed was actually
> > > guilty.
> >
> > I look for the day when the death penalty is totally abolished.
>
> I look for the day when we don't have to wait years and years before
> we execute. I suppose if you husband and kids were brutally murdered,
> you'd still want the killer to get life in prison? Three meals a day,
> all the sex they want, drugs, tv...

"All the sex they want"? Where'd you get that from?

--Bryan

On Friday, September 23, 2011 1:03:14 PM UTC-5, Mark Thorson wrote:
> rosie wrote:
> >
> > On Sep 23, 11:35 am, Christopher Helms > wrote:
> > >
> > > It's Texas. Be grateful that the guy they executed was actually
> > > guilty.
> >
> > I look for the day when the death penalty is totally abolished.
>
> I was pro-death penalty until I read about this case:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham
>
> That tipped me over. If the only way to stop Texas
> from executing innocent people is to ban it nationally,
> I'm in favor of that.

Then maybe Rick Perry will decide to go ahead and secede. I mean, how much fun would it be to be a governor if you didn't get to kill people?

--Bryan

On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:18:21 -0400, TFM® wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 10:03:14 -0800, Mark Thorson wrote:
>
>> rosie wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sep 23, 11:35 am, Christopher Helms > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's Texas. Be grateful that the guy they executed was actually
>>>> guilty.
>>>
>>> I look for the day when the death penalty is totally abolished.
>>
>> I was pro-death penalty until I read about this case:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham
>>
>> That tipped me over. If the only way to stop Texas
>> from executing innocent people is to ban it nationally,
>> I'm in favor of that.
>
> Innocent people do get charged with crimes they didn't commit, and innocent
> people die or spend their lives behind bars, but that's no reason to stop
> punishing the truly guilty.
>
> Some of you people must have lived very sheltered lives. I grew up on the
> mean streets. There are people out there with no regard for human life.
> They will kill you for your shoes.
>
> When those people take another's life, they deserve to die.
>
> That's all, I'm done...
> TFM®

so because some people are guilty, we must kill some innocent people too?
how ****ed up.

blake

On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 21:30:59 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger wrote:

> Dave Smith wrote:
>> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>>> Mark Thorson wrote:
>>
>>> I was pro execution when I thought about how many executed people ever
>>> came back to repeat their crimes. The number is amazingly low.
>>
>> Is it that low? I just checked some Canadian stats for recidivism rates.
>
> People who were executed for crimes and then returned to do the same
> crime again? Really? If you're a serious Christian you may want to
> suggest that Jesus incited riots before and after his crucificion.
> Otherwise the answer is going to be zero. Dead people commit zero
> crimes. Execution is absolutely certain insurance against repeat
> offenses. When it's applied incorrectly to an innocent they still never
> come back to commit a crime.

that's why we should execute anyone who is even *arrested* for murder. why
take chances?

your pal,
blake

On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 09:49:25 -0800, Mark Thorson wrote:

> Christopher Helms wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 22, 11:16 pm, "DavidW" > wrote:
>>> Mark Thorson wrote:
>>> > All it takes is one jerk to ruin it for everybody.
>>>
>>> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2040000
>>>
>>> They could simply place restrictions on it instead.
>>
>> It's Texas. Be grateful that the guy they executed was actually
>> guilty.
>
> Yes, they try to keep it more than 2 out of 3.

a fan of gov. rick perry's said, admiringly, 'it takes balls to execute an
innocent man.'

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:34:49 -0400, blake murphy
> wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 09:49:25 -0800, Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> > Christopher Helms wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sep 22, 11:16 pm, "DavidW" > wrote:
> >>> Mark Thorson wrote:
> >>> > All it takes is one jerk to ruin it for everybody.
> >>>
> >>> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2040000
> >>>
> >>> They could simply place restrictions on it instead.
> >>
> >> It's Texas. Be grateful that the guy they executed was actually
> >> guilty.
> >
> > Yes, they try to keep it more than 2 out of 3.
>
> a fan of gov. rick perry's said, admiringly, 'it takes balls to execute an
> innocent man.'
>
and his are brass.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

On 9/23/2011 12:55 PM, Chemo the Clown wrote:
> On Sep 23, 9:40 am, > wrote:
>> On Sep 23, 11:35 am, Christopher > wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 22, 11:16 pm, > wrote:
>>
>>>> Mark Thorson wrote:
>>>>> All it takes is one jerk to ruin it for everybody.
>>
>>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2040000
>>
>>>> They could simply place restrictions on it instead.
>>
>>> It's Texas. Be grateful that the guy they executed was actually
>>> guilty.
>>
>> I look for the day when the death penalty is totally abolished.
>
> I look for the day when we don't have to wait years and years before
> we execute. I suppose if you husband and kids were brutally murdered,
> you'd still want the killer to get life in prison? Three meals a day,
> all the sex they want, drugs, tv...

I'm iffy about the death penalty but that was a horrific murder and the
killer deserves the same fate.