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, 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.

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.

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 24/09/2011 3:20 AM, rosie wrote:
> On Sep 23, 11:55 am, Chemo the > 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 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.

Life without parole is a tremendous drain on society. Do you know how
much it costs to keep one prisoner for one year? Do some Googling.

Why should a murderer spend the rest of his or her life as a burden on
society? I think that it should be more like China, none of this twenty
years on death row with endless appeals. In China they sentence them and
carry out the sentence within hours in many cases. The only issue is
ensuring that no one who is innocent get executed. We have the means to
tell whether someone is lying, but as it involves potentially dangerous
drugs, they are not used in the western world. Once a person is found
guilty of a capital crime they could be forcibly tested for truthfulness
and released if it turns out that the verdict was wrong. Executed the
same day if it was correct.

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 06:23:31 +1000, Sock wrote:

> We have the means to
> tell whether someone is lying, but as it involves potentially dangerous
> drugs, they are not used in the western world.

sorry, but this is bullshit. there are drugs that remove inhibitions, but
you're just as like to babble gibberish as tell the truth:

According to prevailing medical thought, information obtained under the
influence of intravenously-administered sodium amytal can be unreliable;
subjects may mix fact and fantasy in that context. Skeptics imply that much
of the claimed effect of the drug relies on the belief of the subject that
he or she cannot tell a lie while under its influence. Some observers also
feel that amobarbital does not increase truth-telling, but merely increases
talking; hence, both truth and fabrication are more likely to be revealed
in that construct.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_drug>

blake

On 28/09/2011 3:42 AM, blake murphy wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 06:23:31 +1000, Sock wrote:
>
>> We have the means to
>> tell whether someone is lying, but as it involves potentially dangerous
>> drugs, they are not used in the western world.
>
> sorry, but this is bullshit.

You can be as sorry as you like but it is not bullshit. Your Wiki
reference notes sodium amytal, and that is not what I was referring to.
They have drugs, some were in development stages in Soviet countries
when I took my Psych degree in the eighties, but were considered dangerous.

> there are drugs that remove inhibitions, but
> you're just as like to babble gibberish as tell the truth:

Not so with drugs more recent than sodium amytal.

There is a high risk, but the risk is to motor control, not intellect.
As a final step before executing someone I think that they would be
prepared to accept that risk - if they were innocent.

On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 11:52:31 +1000, Sock wrote:

> On 28/09/2011 3:42 AM, blake murphy wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 06:23:31 +1000, Sock wrote:
>>
>>> We have the means to
>>> tell whether someone is lying, but as it involves potentially dangerous
>>> drugs, they are not used in the western world.
>>
>> sorry, but this is bullshit.
>
> You can be as sorry as you like but it is not bullshit. Your Wiki
> reference notes sodium amytal, and that is not what I was referring to.
> They have drugs, some were in development stages in Soviet countries
> when I took my Psych degree in the eighties, but were considered dangerous.
>
>> there are drugs that remove inhibitions, but
>> you're just as like to babble gibberish as tell the truth:
>
> Not so with drugs more recent than sodium amytal.
>
> There is a high risk, but the risk is to motor control, not intellect.
> As a final step before executing someone I think that they would be
> prepared to accept that risk - if they were innocent.

sorry, it's still bullshit. if such drugs exist, name them and provide a
cite. i'm guessing you can't.

apart from that, there's a little thing called the fifth amendment which
would preclude administering such a drug without consent. offering the
drug instead of execution is not consent.

blake