Here is the Type of Guy We Execute in Texas

Does anyone have any objections?



http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime...-wednesday.ece

Don't have a problem with prison for life in conditions like the AZ sheriff upholds (can't remember his name); however, I'm not a proponent of the death penalty for anybody.

Does anyone have any objections?

"At Feldman’s murder trial, prosecutors produced evidence of numerous confrontations initiated by Feldman, including one where he jumped on the hood of another driver’s car, smashed it with hammer, and then used the hammer to beat the windshield, a door and the driver.
“I have come to hate every single person on this planet with all my heart and soul,” he told a former girlfriend in one of 81 letters to her while awaiting trial. “If I had a button which would kill every single person on this planet, I would push it with no hesitation whatsoever!”"

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime...-wednesday.ece Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

you, an officer of the court, promoting the death penalty for no actual crime other than wanting to ..

if people were put to death for talking shit, you would have been dead long ago.

Emmanual Kant stated that sometimes the proper penalty for a crime is death. That a murderer takes everything away from his (or her) victim including their future. Kant felt that "like for like" was proper when dealing punishment. A thief makes a victim unsure of the security of their personal property and the proper penalty would be take do the same to a thief. Put a thief into slavery without control of their property for the duration of the penalty. As for murder (note: not killing but murder) the only possible penalty that is like for like is the death penalty. In fact, he went so far as to say that if you do not give the death penalty then you are disproportionally punishing people of lesser crimes by not executing criminals. Kant also believed that the penalty should be as painless as possible and humane.

you, an officer of the court, promoting the death penalty for no actual crime other than wanting to ..

if people were put to death for talking shit, you would have been dead long ago. Originally Posted by CJ7

I take it you didn't read the link - he killed 2 people !

Emmanual Kant stated that sometimes the proper penalty for a crime is death. That a murderer takes everything away from his (or her) victim including their future. Kant felt that "like for like" was proper when dealing punishment. A thief makes a victim unsure of the security of their personal property and the proper penalty would be take do the same to a thief. Put a thief into slavery without control of their property for the duration of the penalty. As for murder (note: not killing but murder) the only possible penalty that is like for like is the death penalty. In fact, he went so far as to say that if you do not give the death penalty then you are disproportionally punishing people of lesser crimes by not executing criminals. Kant also believed that the penalty should be as painless as possible and humane. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I like Kant!

I take it you didn't read the link - he killed 2 people ! Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

should have known you'd leave out the crux of the biscuit

The gist of it:

"I believe that while all human life is sacred there’s nothing wrong with the death penalty if you can trust the legal system implicitly, and that no one but a moron would ever trust the legal system.”

But, all the loonie proponents of the death penalty on this board all trust the legal system, don't they? Until it does something they disagree with.

Emmanual Kant... Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

For the record, that would be Immanuel Kant.

(Just thought I'd let you know that, professor, since your compendium of posts indicates that you're always so interested in accuracy.)

I'm not a supporter of the death penalty -- not only because I don't believe that it's much of a deterrent, but because prosecuting it all the way through the appeals processes consumes huge quantities of resources, and also because the legal system occasionally misfires.

The gist of it:

"I believe that while all human life is sacred there’s nothing wrong with the death penalty if you can trust the legal system implicitly, and that no one but a moron would ever trust the legal system.”

But, all the loonie proponents of the death penalty on this board all trust the legal system, don't they? Until it does something they disagree with. Originally Posted by timpage

The absence of a perfect system would grind every activity in America to a halt - including the State Department, which kills innocent people (through neglect like in Benghazi) far more than the Texas justice system.
However, the system gives enough chances for the innocent (those few in Texas jails) to eventually receive justice and compensation. Obama kills more innocent people with drone strikes than Texas even executes.

For the record, that would be Immanuel Kant.

(Just thought I'd let you know that, professor, since your compendium of posts indicates that you're always so interested in accuracy.)

I'm not a supporter of the death penalty -- not only because I don't believe that it's much of a deterrent, but because prosecuting it all the way through the appeals processes consumes huge quantities of resources, and also because the legal system occasionally misfires. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

You are right, it is very resource depleting, and it should be used sparingly. Opinions are mixed on its deterrent effect. A guy like this, it at least stops him from killing again - which he professes a desire to do!

For the record, that would be Immanuel Kant.

(Just thought I'd let you know that, professor, since your compendium of posts indicates that you're always so interested in accuracy.)

I'm not a supporter of the death penalty -- not only because I don't believe that it's much of a deterrent, but because prosecuting it all the way through the appeals processes consumes huge quantities of resources, and also because the legal system occasionally misfires. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Sometimes, the guilt (the evidence) is just so unequivocally overwhelming that execution is justified in particularly heinous cases:

Jeffrey Dahmer
Timothy McVeigh
John Allen Muhammad
Nidal Hasan

Sometimes, the guilt (the evidence) is just so unequivocally overwhelming that execution is justified in particularly heinous cases:

Jeffrey Dahmer
Timothy McVeigh
John Allen Muhammad
Nidal Hasan
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I. B., I'm not an anti-death penalty type -- just not a strong supporter in many instances. But I have no problem with executing criminals who commit the most heinous crimes, and whose guilt is clear beyond the shadow of a doubt.

I just hate to see relatively marginal cases where ambitious, grandstanding officials get carried away with prosecutorial zeal.

I. B., I'm not an anti-death penalty type -- just not a strong supporter in many instances. But I have no problem with executing criminals guilty of the most heinous crimes, and whose guilt is clear beyond the shadow of a doubt.

I just hate to see relatively marginal cases where ambitious, grandstanding officials get carried away with prosecutorial zeal. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I agree.

The absence of a perfect system would grind every activity in America to a halt - including the State Department, which kills innocent people (through neglect like in Benghazi) far more than the Texas justice system.
However, the system gives enough chances for the innocent (those few in Texas jails) to eventually receive justice and compensation. Obama kills more innocent people with drone strikes than Texas even executes. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

If you're really a lawyer then you are either an idiot or you know how stupid that statement is and are just try to be provocative......decisions made in the heat of crisis or combat aren't analogous to the supposedly deliberative process of the courts.

If we are going to judge people for right and wrong, and deprive them of their life based on those reasoned decisions, then we ought to be relying on a system a bit more accurate than what one person thinks they see in a darkened bedroom or on a streetcorner with their adrenal glands flooding their body....just to offer an example of one type of evidence that is frequently relied upon in capital cases.

Will you be posting from Israel or, with any luck at all, is Eccie blocked there?