Previous   Next

Are you for or against the death penalty?

Asked at Checkers, 2300 La. on February 17, 2006

Browse the archives

Photo of Gene Hall

“I’m for it. Only under certain conditions, but I’m for it. I think certain crimes should be punishable by death.”

Photo of Amanda Unruh

“I would have to say that I’m against it. I wouldn’t want to be the one who has to kill them and it’s fairly difficult to be 100 percent sure someone is guilty.”

Photo of Dominique Franklin

“I’m against the death penalty. I think it’s the easy way out. They should let the Lord punish them for what they’ve done. I think letting them think about it while they rot in prison is a better punishment than death.”

Photo of Sam Rodriguez

“Actually I’m for it. I believe that there’s a lot of bad stuff going on out there, and if someone commits a murder, I think capital punishment is appropriate.”


enochville 11 years, 3 months ago

I am against the death penalty.

Deterence: If it were more effective at detering muders than life inprisonment, then I might reconsider, but well conducted studies have demonstrated time and time again that the death penalty is not.

Cost: again studies have shown that it costs the state more to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life.

Justice: This issue is the most debatable. In civil courts, justice involves restoring to the victim what they lost or compensating the victim if restoration is impossible. In the case of murder, restoration is impossible, and no one could come close to compensating the victim's family for the loss of their family member.

Murder is also a crime against society. We, as a society, create punishments for crimes to discourage behavior that is injurous to our citizens. As I stated above, life imprisonment is equally effective as the death penalty in discouraging murder and both punishments keep the person from being a danger to society again. Although a country may be justified in assigning the death penalty, why not use no more severity than is necessary to accomplish the same goals, namely life imprisonment?

Closure for the victim's family: I don't think that it is particularly healthy for a society to foster a blood-thirsty vengefulness in the families of victims. And the closure that families expect to feel with the death of the murderer often does not come with the execution. It is a very difficult thing to cope in the aftermath of a murder, but people should not pivot their healing process on any external condition being met that they have no control over. As hard as it is, they have to decide to move on, regardless of what happens to the murderer.

Cait McKnelly 11 years, 3 months ago

I am for the death penalty. There are people who's crimes are so heinous they cannot be considered human anymore. They are amimals. As such they deserve to be put down like any other crazed, out of control animal. By committing the crimes they have done they have given up the right to be called "human".

neopolss 11 years, 3 months ago

Well spoken today enochville. I happen to be against it, for many of the same reasons that you stated, and a few new ones.

Con: A death sentence creates an additional appeal process that is not given on a life sentence, costing taxpayers more money and giving the defense more time to find inconsistancies with the prosecution's case.

Con: Revenge is a hollow, empty feeling. No person can exactly know what it feels like until they are in the position. Watching someone else die does not bring back a lost loved one, nor does it help create any real closure.

Con: State-sponsored murder should not be any more legal than murder itself.

Con: A dead inmate is a non-working inmate.

jonas 11 years, 3 months ago

Sign me up with enochvilee and neopolss. Well said, both of you.

Liberty 11 years, 3 months ago

I am for the death penalty in cases of 1st degree murder. I would not support it now due to the type of legal system that we have today, as the legal system can not be trusted to do God's justice (some times they do what is right, but the system is corrupt) . It has become corrupted and would eventually try to use it on the part of the population that they didn't like. The degree of control that they are trying to achieve through unjust means (property tax sales, eminent domain etc.) while ignoring the Constitution is a sign of the direction that they are trying to take this country while stealing from you property and your God given rights. Government is supposed to be here to uphold our God given rights, not their own evil desires while stealing from you. The fact that they are not protecting your God given rights is evidence that they are not the government that God has placed here to do good. (Some at the lower levels have honest intentions and still respect God, but the judicial system is corrupt through the practice of their religion (the priests wear black robes) of admiralty (where the judge is like a captain on a ship because they are at sea and no common law court is available or jury, now isn't that special!) and equity law only, instead of Common Law [where you have rights]).

rooga 11 years, 3 months ago

If you kill, be killed, what goes around comes.

blessed3x 11 years, 3 months ago

While I am generally against the death penalty, some people are just too animalistic to remain a presence on Earth. However, I'm afraid I have to agree with enochville on this one, I do not believe that the death penalty is an adequate deterence. In fact, the entire prison system is no deterence. Who's afraid of going to jail when once there you have workout facilities, cable, a warm bed and, as we've all seen recently, cute little puppies to help raise so you can slip out the back door in one of their crates. It's a load of crap. Prison should be TOUGH!!! When you get out of prison you should be sufficiently scared that you will NEVER do anything to go back! EVER!

The problem is that too many crybaby, bleeding hearts have turned the system into club med. Many of these guys have it much better on the inside than they ever had it on the outside. I'm all for rehabilitation, but keep it seperate from prison. Prison is the punishment.

Ceallach 11 years, 3 months ago

Hang on to your hats, boys and girls, it's going to be a 200+ day!!!

grimpeur 11 years, 3 months ago

The question should read:

Would you be for the death penalty if you were falsely accused?

beatrice 11 years, 3 months ago

b3x: prison is "Club Med"? Really? If I were you, I'd find another travel agent.

In general, I am in favor of ending the life of a person who has knowling and without just cause ended the life of another. I'll spare you all from the details of how I come to that conclusion, because I'm sure others have and will touch on it for me.

I am also in favor of eliminating the statute of limitations for rape. DNA evidence makes it possible to convict someone after many, many years. That is a good thing.

I'm just curious -- how long before someone brings up abortion and liberals being a bunch of "baby killers"?

ku_law 11 years, 3 months ago

While I, too, am against the death penalty, a couple comments from others stuck out at me:

enochville said "And the closure that families expect to feel with the death of the murderer often does not come with the execution." How do you know that families often do not get the closure they desire by execution? Are you one of those families? If not, then you really don't have any idea what kind of closure, or lack thereof, an execution gives family.

neopolss said "Watching someone else die does not bring back a lost loved one, nor does it help create any real closure." Again, how do you know? Was someone executed for murdering one of your loved ones? I doubt it. Thus, you have no clue whether or not it creates real closure.

As I stated before, I am against the death penalty in all cases. Though, one should not use as a reason they are against it, that it does not give closure...only the families you speak of know that. So unless you are prepared to tell me you are a family member of someone who was murdered whose killer was executed and you did not get any closure out of it...stick with your other reasons for being anti-death penalty...the ones that statistics can measure.

spikey_mcmarbles 11 years, 3 months ago

Why should a murderer be allowed to live out their life while the victim rots in the ground? What bothers me the most is that convicted murderers spend 10-15-20-25 years on death row awaiting their fate, while the victim got no such reprieve on their death sentance. The state should carry out the execution within 90 days of sentencing.

grimpeur 11 years, 3 months ago


90 days, eh? Why not 90 minutes? Tell it to Roger Valadez, who was mistakenly arrested as the BTK.

craigers 11 years, 3 months ago

I am for it. However, I always hear of the studies that say that life in prison is less expensive than lethal injection. How is that possible? 40 years in jail or maybe 10 and a needle? I don't see how the 40 years in jail can be cheaper. Now I am not trying to say that we should just do the cheap route to demean them but I am seriously asking how that is. And some people really shouldn't continue to live based on their actions. I say murderers, child molesters, and rapists would be on the top of my list that don't deserve to be in society, at least the ones that just openly admit that this is their personality and they can't change.

badger 11 years, 3 months ago

I'm for it in certain circumstances. There are cases when I look at someone like a Dahmer or a Gacy, and I think that person has removed himself from the society of humanity. Some crimes are so horrific and heinous that the person who commits them qualifies more as a very bright animal than as a person, and when an animal is rabid and a danger to itself or others, you put it down. Without fanfare, without patting yourself on the back or justifying it with high-flown philosophy, just "He's not coming back to our side of the fence, boys, and he'll never stop being driven by the need to kill and maim. He is terminally mentally ill, and will never get less violent or brutal."

However, in the vast majority of cases where it ends up being the sentence, I believe it's inappropriate and barbaric for many of the reasons enochville and neopolss so eloquently stated above. I don't believe it's right to put someone to death as vengeance or retribution because he lost control of an armed robbery and shot someone, or because she stabbed her abusive husband in his sleep with a kitchen knife. It does not say good things about our society that we put children and the mentally handicapped to death.

grimpeur 11 years, 3 months ago


Would you be for it if you were wrongly accused of murder? Or only when someone else is?

Ember 11 years, 3 months ago

At what point does a person that is sentence to die gain the right to wait?

At what point do we have a say in how our tax dollars are spent?

Prisons are overcrowded.

You say executions are expensive?

How much does 10 feet of rope cost?

How much does a single 30.06 round of ammunition cost?

acg 11 years, 3 months ago

I can see this causing some rifts today. I am totally for the death penalty but for certain crimes like any rape/sodomy/murder crime committed against a child. I don't think some of those sick freaks can be rehabilitated and it wouldn't make me lose a bit of sleep at all to know that they were being disposed of just like the trash they are. If you're twisted enough to rape a 2 year old kid then I personally don't want you on the planet. To me that person has no real value to our society whatsoever. Adults murdering one another, to me, isn't as horrifying as crimes committed against innocent kids. Some times there are extenuating circumstances that cause adults to murder each other, but there's never any reason, ever, to harm a kid. So I say, if you kill/rape a child, you should die.

enochville 11 years, 3 months ago

ku_law: Thankfully, I am not closely related to anyone who has been murdered. Yet, you make the false assumption that I would not know whether it brings closure or not. You forget that some people who have gone through it have spoken out and told us whether or not it gave them closure. You quoted me as saying "often", not always, but often families say that they expected closure, but the execution brought none. Instead, I have heard reports from these families after watching death my lethal injection where they say, "That was it? It was like he just peacefully fell asleep. That was too good for him. That is not fair."

I'll see if I can find you a copy of transcripts of what families have said.

RonBurgandy 11 years, 3 months ago

Life in prison is no picnic, unless you can pull in that married woman who will give up her life to break you out.

I do believe that they will get what they deserve post death. I think in life, a lifetime in prison is worse than being put to death. It could, possibly, offer closure to the victim's family.

So after all that babble, I think that I am against it.

craigers 11 years, 3 months ago

That's why I am glad we do have waiting periods because it does give the defense time to get their clients exonerated from the charges. This is where you would have to put faith in the justice system that has failed us many times before but we still have to trust it because that is all that we have. If not, then bounty hunters and hit-men will be on the rise. I admit there are problems and some are wrongly accused but the information and tools we have available to us are capable of nailing down who the criminal is. I feel that those criminals that are committing crimes and show no remorse or no rehabilitation, then yes they should be put to death.

craigers 11 years, 3 months ago

After watching Green Mile, maybe we should have the electric chair brought back in.

sunflower_sue 11 years, 3 months ago


Enochville, If someone took the life of one of my children or close family member, I sure would want the opportunity to see if I felt any "closure" at their death. I would also want the opportunity to kill them with my bare hands. It may only bring me temporary relief and I may not be able to do it, but like I said, I would want that opportunity. If given that opportunity, wether I could go through with it or not, I might feel closure.

I'm also with spikey Mc...No 20+ years on death row. Lets shorten up this system and it won't suck the taxpayers dry.

ku_law 11 years, 3 months ago

"That was it? It was like he just peacefully fell asleep. That was too good for him. That is not fair." --->Yes, I'd like to see the source of that...

Even that does not imply a lack of closure. We are talking about closure in dealing with the death of the family's loved one. I presume that the closure, of dealing with the death of their loved one, comes with the death of the killer...not in the manner in which the killer was executed. If that were not the case, I don't believe any family would feel closure b/c they would want the killer to face the same brutal death their loved one faced. While the family may say "that is not fair" re how he died (peacefully by lethal injection), that does not mean they still don't feel closure in knowing their family member's killer is dead.

mztrendy 11 years, 3 months ago

I'm for it if you commit murder. But I think the kicker is you should have to go the same way your victim went. It'd only be fair.

christie 11 years, 3 months ago

Please be advised, the Death Penalty is the most effective deterent to capital crimes than any other punishment. Once a person, found guilty, is put to death, they are not at liberty to commit more murders.

Life without parole does NOT protect society from these people. Right now there is a convicted murderer on the loose. Furthermore, life in prison does NOT protect others in prison from becoming a victim.

In order for someone to be eligible for the Death Penalty, the crime must be in conjunction with another felony, ie: Robbery, Rape, etc. so if I simply walk up to someone and kill someone then I wouldn't be eligible.

I say... KILL EM ALL.

craigers 11 years, 3 months ago

TOB, I have another question. If they are on death row with others, why do they need separate jail cells? Maybe this would take care of our problem. Put killers in cells together, maybe two or three to a cell and see how long they survive. If they are on death row would it be bad for them to off each other. I understand the absurdity of my comment, but honestly do they really merit a separate cell?

sunflower_sue 11 years, 3 months ago

For those of you arguing that it costs more to put someone to death, let me just add that if we're going to talk money, it would be cheaper to just set everyone free. No prisons. Too expensive. It's all a money issue. We are America and we love our precious money. My precious! My P R E C I O U S!

craigers 11 years, 3 months ago

I would think that everybody that is sentenced to death row or life in prison would exhaust all of their appeals in the same way, so the only cost that needs to be determined is housing and care of the facilities they are in. In that case, take your 64 year life expectancy and compare it to housing somebody for 25 years and then giving them the needle.

craigers 11 years, 3 months ago

Sunflower sue, you made me just start laughing since that made me think of Cartmen on South Park. Just thinking of that kids voice cracks me up.

sunflower_sue 11 years, 3 months ago

Craigers, that was Butters! (My sister is a Southpark junkie and occasionally makes me watch them with her.)

irnmadn88 11 years, 3 months ago

Who says the state has to kill the criminal...

If they are legally convicted, lock them in a room with a time limit...have them choose between a lethal ending right there on the spot or life behind bars...after all they should know their guilt or innocence.

Hong_Kong_Phooey 11 years, 3 months ago

Ride the lightnin', boys!! Ride the lightnin'!

Actually, if I had my druthers, we would go back to firing squads. They only cost about 50 cents a bullet.

sunflower_sue 11 years, 3 months ago

Craigers, as difficult as it is for me to admit this, (shhhhh...don't tell anyone) My 74 year old mother watches South Park! Oh the shame! ;) See why I'm so screwed up?

sunflower_sue 11 years, 3 months ago

HKP, In the case of crimes committed against children, my hubby says that a block of wood and a hammer is cheaper. Most people already have these tools lying around the house. (And they are reusable!) Gotta love recycling!

bankboy119 11 years, 3 months ago

Well since you all already knew where my mind was I don't have to bring it up.

I am for the death penalty.

God said, "Thou shalt not murder." There is a difference between murdering and killing. If it were true that God had said, "Thou shalt not kill," then there would be a blatant example of hypocrisy within the Bible. God gave the Ten Commandments to Moses and then later told Saul to destroy all of his enemies, including the women and children. In order to get the difference in literary translation of murder and kill in the Bible it has to be read in the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. The same can be said of the word "love" in the New Testament. There are two different Greek words used for "love" in the Bible. There are also other examples but those are two of the most prominent.

bmwjhawk 11 years, 3 months ago

I am absolutely in favor of it, because Missouri doesn't deserve a basketball program any more. Do away with it at once!

craigers 11 years, 3 months ago

Sue, now I remember it was the episode of the whole video scandel. Now it is fresh in my mind.

Now TOB, I didn't mean to approach it as a cost issue, but I just meant that these people are on death row and if they are there it is because they are completely guilty of murder and can't really get rehabilitated. That is why I didn't think they are worthy of getting cells by themselves. I mean the other criminals aren't worthy of getting separate cells. Is it like in businesses where the CEOs get their own offices, so as it is in prisons where the big wig killers get their own cells? I don't know, we just talk about them being a danger to society and then try to lock them up in their own compartment like they are special compared to the other prisoners.

RonBurgandy 11 years, 3 months ago

This is one of those issues where I am floating around in that gray area...

...being attacked by blue squares.

sgtwolverine 11 years, 3 months ago

it's a little bit startling to me to see the number of statements concerning the surrendering of humanity. startling, and disconcerting. to that, i say this: we shouldn't claim that authority. as humans, we have no basis for saying we can decide that someone no longer deserves the privilege of life. in committing his murder, a murderer has already made that decision for someone else. how are we justified in making a humanity judgment as a mean of punishing someone for making a humanity judgment we would condemn so vociferously, and from where do we derive our wisdom and authority in making that judgment? i simply don't think we have it. imprisonment, absolutely; ending lives ... i'm not sold on it.

also, whether or not an execution does bring closure to a family, it would be worth considering whether or not that's the best and healthiest closure we could seek. i wonder if better closure would not be dependent on the eventual fate of the criminal.

dviper 11 years, 3 months ago

Yes, and add rape and child molestation as crimes punishable by the death penalty.

And let's also change the law to give 1 year maximum for appeal process before execution of death penalty.

bankboy119 11 years, 3 months ago

Bob, as much as I like the South Dakota idea have you seen Johnny English? Pascal Servage(I don't know how you spell the last name) had a good idea in locking all the prisoners up on an island. I say we move them to Greenland. It will give them more room, they can fend for themselves, and it puts them away from society. Now we may have to worry about Vikings later but I think we can handle it.

Grundoon Luna 11 years, 3 months ago

With the best-justice-system-money-can-buy that we have now, no, HELL NO! It's not that I would mind seeing Rader or Robinson hang, roast, or "go to sleep," it's just that there are far too many people who have been exonerated with DNA after having been wrongfully convicted, and that largely due to eye witness tesimony - which is given so much weight in court but is so incredibly unreliable. Until we can ensure that no one is wrongfully convicted then we should not impose the death pentaly. No one should be put to death if the most reliable direct evidence wasn't used.

enochville 11 years, 3 months ago

ku_law: I have found a few quotes, they are not exactly what I was looking for, but I don't want us to loose focus. You said that even if I provided the quotes of some families being disappointed in the execution...

"Even that does not imply a lack of closure. We are talking about closure in dealing with the death of the family's loved one. I presume that the closure, of dealing with the death of their loved one, comes with the death of the killer...While the family may say "that is not fair" re how he died (peacefully by lethal injection), that does not mean they still don't feel closure in knowing their family member's killer is dead."

So, the real question is two fold: does executtion bring closure sonner or more completely than life without the possibility of parole. I imagine that there would be individual differences, even within the same family. A study would need to be done to find out about the completeness of the closure, but we can say objectively that families who are waiting for a convict to be murdered will have their case brought up again and again for decades through the appeals process, whereas that is not the case with the family who has a convict in life imprisonment. Not to say the second convict can't appeal, but historically, convicts on death row take more appeals over longer time periods, so their victim's families have a long time to wait through many rehashings.

Here are a few quotes: (the quotes are half way down the page).

badger 11 years, 3 months ago

ku_law said:

"Even that does not imply a lack of closure. We are talking about closure in dealing with the death of the family's loved one. I presume that the closure, of dealing with the death of their loved one, comes with the death of the killer...not in the manner in which the killer was executed. If that were not the case, I don't believe any family would feel closure b/c they would want the killer to face the same brutal death their loved one faced. While the family may say "that is not fair" re how he died (peacefully by lethal injection), that does not mean they still don't feel closure in knowing their family member's killer is dead."

Actually, the reality of 'closure' has nothing to do with the death of the person who did you or your loved ones harm.

Closure doesn't come from the execution of a murderer, even if you get to beat him to death with your bare hands while singing show tunes.

Closure comes from the moment when you accept your loss, work through the grief and anger, and stop hating the criminal, the world, or God because you lost something or someone you loved and it hurt like hell. It comes when you stop defining yourself by your loss, your pain, and your grief, and start the process of becoming whole and healed again.

Closure is a psychological process, not a legal one. If seeing your child's murderer executed is the only thing that will allow you to accept that she is dead and your life has to go on, then an execution catalyzes your closure, but ultimately it's a process of accepting the loss and, as impossible as it sounds, forgiving the person who caused it.

And before anyone asks, no I haven't empirically tested this by losing someone to violent crime and witnessing the murderer's execution. But I have lost more loved ones and friends than I care to count right now (including one whose murderer was shot on the scene), and I have been horribly and devastatingly wronged by people, and I have learned a few lessons about the healing value of the process of forgiveness, about acceptance, and about closure.

grimpeur 11 years, 3 months ago

The question, again, is:

Would you be in favor of the death penalty if you were wrongly accused of a capital crime?

No answers yet.

DaREEKKU 11 years, 3 months ago

We are the ONLY industrialized nation that still uses the death penalty. We claim to be a pioneer in civil rights and democracy and we have become the joke of the world......ponder that if you will.

badger 11 years, 3 months ago

All right, grimpeur, I'll answer.

If I were wrongly accused of a capital crime, it wouldn't affect my thoughts on the death penalty, because I have enough faith in the system to believe that if I am innocent I will not be convicted.

Now, if I were wrongly convicted of a capital crime, I would probably lose the last of my faith in the system, but it wouldn't change my feelings on the death penalty itself. If I were found guilty of the brutal serial murder of nineteen people and a schnauzer, my thoughts would still be that for someone who did what I was convicted of doing, the death penalty is an appropriate sentence.

It would, however, energize me to be an outspoken advocate for reform of the trial process, if I were wrongly convicted, and I would use every appeal available to me.

sgtwolverine 11 years, 3 months ago

"Would you be in favor of the death penalty if you were wrongly accused of a capital crime?"

I'm with Bob on this one -- it's sort of a ridiculous question. It's like asking a coach if he's in favor of instant replay after his team got screwed over by a replay. There's something to be said for perspective.

ku_law 11 years, 3 months ago

In other words enochville, you have nothing to back up your claim. There was nothing in that link that said families did not get closure from the execution. There was one quote of a person that said he/she wished the person would have suffered more. So what? That does not mean they did not get closure from it. And I understand you not wanting to "lose focus." By that you obviously mean "I don't want us focusing on the fact that I was mistaken and have nothing to back up the claims I made."

BADGER, do you feel like a hypocrit? If not, you should. You said, "Closure is a psychological process, not a legal one." That I agree with. A psychological process would imply that closure is a process that occurs within one's self. Not something that is legally defined and applicable to all. Despite that, you go on to try to say what closure is and is not. "Closure doesn't come from the execution of a murderer." Closure is a psychological process. How do you know a family doesn't get closure from the execution of a murderer? Perhaps knowing that the person that killed their son/daughter, brother/sister, mom/dad, now dead is what they need to move on. So don't try to tell me that closure is a psychological process and then try to explain what does and does not bring closure. If it is truly pyschological, which I agree with, closure is different to everyone.

You also said, 'but ultimately it's a process of accepting the loss and, as impossible as it sounds, forgiving the person who caused it." Again, if closure is psychological, then you don't know what closure is and is not to other people. Closure may be forgiving the person who caused the loss to you, but to someone else it may be seeing the person who cause the loss die.

So, what you should have been arguing is "Seeing the person that caused the loss of someone I care about die would not bring closure TO ME b/c TO ME closure does not come from the execution of that person, but TO ME closure comes from forgiving that person."

mztrendy 11 years, 3 months ago

you guys think Marion is on vacation??

craigers 11 years, 3 months ago

I say we do a new reality TV show with all the convicted murderers on a deserted island with either Arnold Schwartzeneger or Bruce Willis and see if they fare as well as the movies depict them doing against all odds.

sgtwolverine 11 years, 3 months ago

Actually, forget the murderers -- just pit Arnold against Willis. That might be fun.

extra_mustard 11 years, 3 months ago

Dominique rules! Care to help me release my prisoner?

RonBurgandy 11 years, 3 months ago

Don't play the squares game with your volume way up. Just found that one out.

sgtwolverine 11 years, 3 months ago

Hey, it could be a whole tournament of action stars. I'd watch that.

ku_law 11 years, 3 months ago

Hypocrit--> Tells me that closure is not a legal definition...says, in not so many words, that it is not definable b/c it is a psychological process, YET, says what does not does not bring closure. So, by telling me I can't define closure b/c it is a psychological process and then telling me what it is and is not (essentially defining it himself), he is being hypocritical.

It's not hard. Use your brain.

ku_law 11 years, 3 months ago

Typo: "YET, says what does not does not bring closure" should read "what does AND does not..."

acg 11 years, 3 months ago

Bruce Willis would kick his a**! :)

RonBurgandy 11 years, 3 months ago

Who would be the dark horse in the tournament though?

craigers 11 years, 3 months ago

I don't know, but I do like the fact that in all of Willis' movies he looks the same. I don't know if it is the same make up artist that just does his bloodly look the same every time or what.

I think in a fist fight I would like to see Segal and Van Damme.

craigers 11 years, 3 months ago

Oh yeah, we need to include Chuck Norris!!!

ku_law 11 years, 3 months ago

Yes, you are correct apologies.

RonBurgandy 11 years, 3 months ago

Is it just a big free-for-all or are there individual matches?

craigers 11 years, 3 months ago

Ron, that's not right man, I about peed my pants!!! thanks for the game though.

sgtwolverine 11 years, 3 months ago

I might look for the guy whose various movie characters are the most similar to each other. He'd probably be most likely to fall back into that sort of character.

On the other hand, Segal does have that extra hair as a weapon. That must count for something.

On yet another hand, I think Norris would be able to make his opponent double over in laughter, which would leave him quite an opportunity to end the round. Which makes him formidable indeed.

montycarlo 11 years, 3 months ago

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

RonBurgandy 11 years, 3 months ago

craigers - I didn't know that would happen when I posted the link. Kind of ruined everything for me.

acg 11 years, 3 months ago

Shame, shame, Ron. That scared the crap out of me.

Linda Endicott 11 years, 3 months ago

"If there is no hope of a person ever being anything but an insane killer (ie Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, etc.), then what is the point of their life?"

What, really, is the point of anyone's life? Does there have to be a point in order for someone to be granted life? If there does, then a lot of us are in trouble.

It costs far more to sentence someone to death, due to the appeals process, court costs, and that a lot of the convicted have no money and use public defenders. It's not the execution that costs more. It's the safeguards that are in place to try and make sure that innocent people aren't executed that's so expensive. But you should be glad those safeguards are there, considering how many innocent people on death row have been released because of DNA evidence being available now.

No one can prove that innocent people have ever been executed? Well, probably not. Records and evidence have a way of disappearing when prosecutors and states don't want to be proven wrong. Not to mention all the old cases where modern forensics wasn't available, there is no way of ever truly finding out.

But even one person being wrongly executed is one too many. The whole justice system is far too flawed for my liking, and it doesn't make sense to me, as flawed as it is, that so many people can emphatically insist that mistakes never happen. They happen all the time with lesser crimes. What makes you so sure that mistakes never, ever happen with death penalty cases?

In other areas of life, do the right always win? Does justice always prevail? Did your mother ever tell you, as mine did, that life isn't always fair? Would you really want to trust your chances of being acquitted in court, when you're innocent? I wouldn't.

If prison is such a wonderful place, and everyone in there is treated like they're at club med, then why are so many prisoners escaping lately?

"An evil deed is not redeemed by an evil deed of retaliation. Justice is never advanced in the taking of a human life. Morality is never upheld by legalized murder." - Coretta Scott King

Every state in the country, regardless of the type of execution, conducts it in such a way that no one person ever knows whether they were actually the executioner or not. If it's so easy to kill a person, even one convicted of a heinous crime, why is this done? Because people couldn't deal with knowing they were ultimately the cause of someone's death. Unlike a lot of you who seem to think you could do the executions yourself, it's not such an easy thing to do.

And anyone who could take pleasure in putting someone to death is pretty twisted. Not any better than the murderer, in my opinion. You really think you could do it? Go to a prison and see what kind of training is required, and go for it.

Death penalty as a deterrent? If it's such a wonderful deterrent, then why are murders still happening?

I am against the death penalty.

RonBurgandy 11 years, 3 months ago

acg - that's a great site. A few of my favorites:

Chuck Norris counted to infinity - twice. Chuck Norris is so fast, he can run around the world and punch himself in the back of the head. Chuck Norris doesn't read books. He stares them down until he gets the information he wants.

Also, that game sucks, I know. I wish that they would remove it.

deepthroat 11 years, 3 months ago

KU_law and Enochville:

For your information: TITLE: Doubting Thomas: Should family members of victims watch executions? AUTHOR: Domino,-Marla-L; Boccaccini,-Marcus-T SOURCE: Law-and-Psychology-Review. Vol 24 Spr 2000, 59-75. PUBLICATION TYPE: Journal; Peer-Reviewed-Journal ABSTRACT: Several states recently implemented legal initiatives allowing family members of murder victims to view the execution of their loved-one's killer. However, the value of such policies is questionable. This article addresses the legal and ethical implications of "death watching" laws. The authors discuss the history of public executions, emphasizing the role popular media plays in inoculating the public to themes of death; analyze current execution-witness laws and their effectiveness; lay out the psychological research related to execution-watching; and analyze the results of a survey. 219 Ss (mean age 19 yrs) completed a questionnaire to gauge public support and general attitudes towards execution-watching. Responses to the questionnaire indicated that most Ss would not want to witness an execution. However, Ss were more likely to report that they would want to watch the execution of a family-member's murderer than the execution of a stranger's killer. The authors conclude that execution-watching is less about a family's closure and more about celebrating the death of a human being and suggest that legal initiatives to allow family members to view executions that are not rooted in solid case law and supported by empirical evidence should be carefully scrutinized.

lovenhaight 11 years, 3 months ago

Against the death penalty, totally and completely. Why allow someone to die and not live with the consequences of their actions? Why not let them sit in jail and rot, thinking about how life goes on without them just a few hundred feet away? I don't understand why people are so gung-ho about the death penalty. Doesn't that make you just as bad as the murderer? I know its a button, but it makes sense. "Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?"

Linda Aikins 11 years, 3 months ago

I say make them go quail hunting with the VP. Somewhere there is a cartoon with Chaney calling Clinton and inviting him and his wife to go quail hunting.

Silly but true.

sgtwolverine 11 years, 3 months ago

Now, would the various James Bonds be in this competition? If so, would they compete separately, or would they be one big Bond team?

Also, what are Jackie Chan's chances?

enochville 11 years, 3 months ago

Thanks, deepthroat.

ku_law: You mischaracterized my statements. My point of not focusing on families' quotes was because as you correctly observed, even if I provided the quotes it would mean little. So, instead of wasting my time trying to find better quality quotes, I addressed your arguments head on. Instead of reponding to the meatier parts of my reply, you did "lose focus" on the debate and thought you could earn some easy points off something I had already admitted was not the strength of my argument.

ms_canada 11 years, 3 months ago

I don't believe in killing even by the state. What I am really against is Parole. Canadian laws are different from US laws. Here if a person is sentenced to life in prison, it usually means 25 years. That is what I object to. Life should mean life. We execute very few here in Canada. Even a horrible killer of innocent young girls like Paul Bernardo. If you have not heard of him you may be the only one. Now I must add that I sure do not believe that a person like that has any right to live on this planet. But how should he be dispatched? I have no answer. I am personally acquainted with a person who ran a young women down in a crosswalk and killed her. He got a 5 year sentence and served 1 1/2 years. I don't think that is right. As I said, I don't agree with parole. Death? We have two fellows here in Canada who served 22 & 25 years and then due to DNA evidence were found innocent and released. One of the men now has deep mental problems from false imprisonment. The law is not perfect. No, I say, no execution.

badger 11 years, 3 months ago


You missed my point. Entirely. You also added in some things I just didn't say, like that because closure isn't a legal process (you know, one based in the principles of law?), that there's no defining it. I gave what I consider to be a very clear explanation of the psychological process of attaining closure.

The closure doesn't come from the execution itself. It can't, being that it's a psychological process. By the way, just because something is a psychological process and therefore unique to the individual, that doesn't make it not definable. It just means that it's not going to be the same experience exactly for everyone who has it.

What is unique to the individual is what will trigger that closure, not the fact 'having closure' is inherently an internal acceptance process. You'll note that I said, "If seeing your child's murderer executed is the only thing that will allow you to accept that she is dead and your life has to go on, then an execution catalyzes your closure, but ultimately it's a process of accepting the loss and, as impossible as it sounds, forgiving the person who caused it."

Let me reword that for clarity:

If you gain closure after you watch your child's murderer executed, the closure came from your response to the execution, not the execution itself. You needed, to accept that your notion of justice has been satisfied, to see that person die. The simple mind will say, then, that the execution gave you closure. That's not entirely wrong, but it's more right to say that you had a preconceived notion that execution = justice, and once that was satisfied, you could get on with your internal healing process.

A lot of things can catalyze the acceptance process. Some of them are beneficial, like grief therapy and getting closer to others you love. Some of them are not beneficial, like hitting bottom on a drug addiction or a suicide attempt. One important factor to most (not all) healing processes is the ability to feel that the person who caused the harm has been or will be justly punished, either by prison, the death sentence, karma, Hell, or whatever your personal moral and ethical framework requires. Some people can forgive as an entirely internal process, completely independent of what happens to the person who hurt them. That's a pretty incredible thing to be able to do, and most people don't have the philosophical chops for it. I know I don't. I require a belief in justice to complete my healing process.

There's nothing in there about not being able to define closure. The closest I'll come to agreeing with that is that I concede that since everyone's grieving process is different, everyone's trigger for acceptance and closure won't be the same.

Janet Lowther 11 years, 3 months ago

To me the prospect of life in prison without parole seems a much more severe sentence than being put to sleep.

For the death penalty to have any deterrence value it would need to take place promptly, violently and publicly. Hanging or the guillotine on the public square (and on TV) within weeks or days of the sentence could provide some deterrence value, but being put to sleep like a bad dog years after the crime, long after the public has forgotten the incident? Not a chance.

However, the wheels of justice grind slowly if exceedingly fine, and it would be a crime to hang an innocent, so prompt is right out.

A sentence of death by imprisonment would be the best way to impose a death penalty. Lock 'em up and throw away the key. If they re-offend in prison, they can always be moved to increasingly severe custody: Supermax, then complete isolation.

Larry 11 years, 3 months ago

Amen ms_canada - just a couple of weeks ago - a television station in KC (KCTV5) reported that a convicted murderer is up for parole after only fifteen years. The inmate stabbed his victim so many times that the coroner stopped counting as well as cut the finger off of his victim. He or his wife pawned the ring at a local pawn shop which is how they caught the idiot. But wait - maybe he just found the ring and he really isn't guilty after all.

Larry 11 years, 3 months ago

Not sure that I agree with capital punishment either. Cases like the one I previously mentioned sure makes me want to consider it. Obviously a plea bargain involved for 2nd degree murder.

canyon_wren 11 years, 3 months ago

What good comments today--on both sides. I especially liked those of badger, enochville, acg, Das_U, TOB and RonBurgandy. (I am enjoying the squares thing, but also am still hooked on throwing paper into the basket!)

I agree that we need to have the death penalty for convicted child molesters--providing we can get past the danger of false accusations which is really becoming a problem.

I can't believe that it is cheaper to keep someone in prison than to execute him/her. TOB--thanks for those good Calif. statistics--very informative.

I also agree that we need to have some sort of deadline for appeals--20 years on death row is pretty bad.

With over 100 at this time of the day--who knows, you might hit 300. Has that record been set before?

Sure a lot of thoughtful posters--again, on both sides of each issue. It's good to have a question for a change that gives folks a chance to really think about it.

enochville 11 years, 3 months ago

This comment is only relevant to those who look to Christ as an example. I am not trying to beat anyone over the head with it, just humbly offering it as an example.

The one occasion that we have recorded in which Christ was asked for his opinion on what should happen to a lady taken in adultry, which was a capital offense according to the law given to Moses from God, was "He that is without sin among you, let him cast a stone at her".

I know that there is a big difference between adultry and murder, but the point that I am trying to make is that if one uses the Mosaic law to justify the death penalty, remember that Christ did not execute the laws of God by voicing support for execution when he had the chance.

I acknowledge that he did not repeal the death penalty. If nations use it appropriately, I do not think that they are under any condemnation. I am not going to launch a campaign to outlaw the death penalty. But, being that the Lord seems content to allow us to do as we see fit on this issue, I will vote against the death penalty, because I see that it does no to little good, so why do it? Why take a human life if you don't have to?

craigers 11 years, 3 months ago

Marion siting on the sewer crisis article!!!

canyon_wren 11 years, 3 months ago

In answer to the question, I suppose I am for the death penalty; I DO believe the reliable translation of the 10 Commandments said "Thou Shalt Not 'Murder' " not 'Kill'--but I really agree that it has to be applied only in the instances of heinous crimes where the perp can never change. I agree with the metaphor of the rabid animal that someone offered.

beatrice 11 years, 3 months ago

Honestly, I think you have all gone too far! Besides, Cheney swears it was an accident, and the guy he shot is still alive! So I feel the death penalty is a bit too far in this instance. He probably shouldn't get more than 20 years hard labor.

Or have I somehow misread the question?

Linda Aikins 11 years, 3 months ago

Beatrice - no. I think you get the drift!

Yes, Marion is on the sewer article and plans to stop all the sludge problems in our entire city. What a man!


I feel very flushed...

beatrice 11 years, 3 months ago

So the Ten Commandments are meant to say "murder," rather than "kill." I see. I guess that is what all the fuss has been to remove the Ten from courthouses -- people just want to fix the typo.

canyon_wren 11 years, 3 months ago

You could be right, Beatrice! Never thought of that!

Topside 11 years, 3 months ago

If they aren't actually going to execute these people in a timely fashion than just do away with the death penalty. If they have a right to a speedy trial they should get a "speedier" death. For Instatnce, is there any good reason why Charles Manson is still alive? He was sentenced to death close to 40 yrs ago or whatever. WHat the Hell? Also, that crips guy "Tookie" was on D-Row for like 20+ yrs. too. If they aren't going to actually execute these guys and gals just do away with it and save us some money and quit tying up the courts with lame appeals.

badger 11 years, 3 months ago

Gootsie - That's funny. I feel drained, myself.

Enochville and Das_Ubermime: I also wrestle with the concept of a punishment that doesn't somehow reflect badly on society. Both imprisonment and execution have a philosophical impact on us. We have to do something, though. We can't just let them go wandering about as is, and we haven't found a way to make them less dangerous.

I think that we will always have to have some way to take someone out of society permanently, be it life incarceration or execution, because I think that there will always remain the possibility of someone whose drive to violence and brutality is beyond our capacity to integrate. I personally favor execution in that case because of my beliefs on reincarnation, that once someone is beyond any possible hope of being able to live among others without being a threat, I'd rather see him released to take his next turn on the wheel.

glockenspiel 11 years, 3 months ago

Against. My best judgement tells me its immoral.

BunE 11 years, 3 months ago

Against it.

The state should not have the power to put an individual to death. Individuals kill, submitting themselves to the jusrisdiction of state, but there is no recourse after the state kills. The state should not have direct power over life and death.

Thank god for the defense attorney. A Bulwark against the tyranny and unlimited resources of the state.

Kathleen Christian 11 years, 3 months ago

I notice the younger generation are more prone to being against the death penalty but they weren't around when it was in affect. Though it didn't totally defer such crimes as murder, kidnapping and rape (because these were death penalty crimes), it did however lesson the amount of them and the severity of them. Criminals seem to becoming more creative in the way they commit these crimes. I imagine these criminals now think since they don't have to pay the crime with their lives and can eventually get out of jail (some) they have nothing to really fear. Therefore, I think the death penalty should return for this reason.

beatrice 11 years, 3 months ago

Topside: "For Instatnce, is there any good reason why Charles Manson is still alive?" -- Because he makes for a good interview with Gerald every 10 years or so? Actually, Manson's death sentence became life in prison during the time when the death penalty was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. They can't go back and resentence him now that the death penalty is legal. I'm just surprised that he has web-access, and that he posts here on occassion. : )

Other than that, I agree with you that it needs to be done relatively quickly, or not at all.

enochville 11 years, 3 months ago

Here ( are numerous studies that demonstrate that the death penalty is no more or a deterrent than life without parole.

Anecdotal evidence from personal memories of crime statistics cannot begin to refute this data. Also, there is no need to think about the inner psychological weighing of the consequences in the minds of a potential murderer. The numbers (the results) shows that capital punishment is no more effective at preventing crime than life imprisonment.

Some studies use concurrent data from neighboring states that have different laws on the death penalty, thus controling for historical changes in crime. Other studies use data from the same state before and after they changed their death penalty options, thus controlling for different populations.

trinity 11 years, 3 months ago

burgandy, the squares were MUCH more fun than the maze!

my answer remains, for.

HenryClifford 11 years, 3 months ago

Let's take a poll... Would those in favor of capital punishment please tell us how many innocent deaths need to occur before you find capital punishment to be unacceptable?

As of November 15, 2005, there have been 122 exonerations (typically by DNA evidence) in 25 different States since Gregg v. Georgia 1976 reinstated the Death Penalty in 1976.

While our society tolerates innocent deaths in a number of ways (transportation, war, amusement park rides), most of these have an element of assumed risk... e.g., I willingly assume risk by driving a car or by riding on a roller coaster. This important aspect is missing in a criminal case.

Reversing capital punishment and implementing life without parole will provide the same prevention as capital punishment and is reversible should human error (or worse) result in a false conviction.

lunacydetector 11 years, 3 months ago

this is a difficult question. i think the death penalty should apply in certain circumstances. i saw photos of the tookie williams victims. he deserved it, no matter how bad the hollywood leftists wanted him alive. one lady had her face blown off.

if the prison system treated prisoners who committed murders differently, i might be inclined they should live. no television, no mingling with the prison population, long hard labor busting rocks for 14 hours a day, sleep deprivation...etc. most of them don't have a conscience, so it is difficult as to how to treat them other than death.

lunacydetector 11 years, 3 months ago

Let's take a poll... Would those in favor of abortion please tell us how many innocent deaths need to occur before you find abortion to be unacceptable? 42,000,000+ babies vs. 122 exonerations of convicted murderers.

RonBurgandy 11 years, 3 months ago

It lasted until the p.m.? A rather slow time for a hot topic discussion.

ItalianMafiaPrincess 11 years, 3 months ago

I'm all for it due to the fact I had a friend in Cali who was killed by Randy Kraft who was a serial killer. Randy never did make it to death row as someone in prison took care of his death for him.

Not sure if any of you have ever heard of Randy Kraft, but I'm sure you could Google him or find him on some serial killer website. He had been killing young guys for years in Cali and I lost a close friend to that @$$hole.

So for me I'm all for the death penalty for those who commit crimes that are truely horrible. Take for instance:

The lady who killed that young mom and cut out her baby should be on death row. I don't really give a crap whether she was insane or not. She needs to be put to death for what she did to that young mother to be.

  • Anyone know whats up with * Does anyone know of any other sites local that you can post things for sale. For some reason or another the owner of is taking forever emailing me back so I can post or respond to others who have posted? I figured I would ask in here since maybe one of you might know.

Thanks and have a great weekend.

Linda Aikins 11 years, 3 months ago

Lulu appears in the sewer article postings too.

badger 11 years, 3 months ago

All sorts of things surface when the sewers back up...

Linda Aikins 11 years, 3 months ago

Job? Job? Of course! How else can I post on here all day and still get paid???

It's funny how many words engineers come up with to say the word poo. Sludge. Solids. Product. Cracks me up.

badger 11 years, 3 months ago

Ah, the irony moment comes again, when someone predictably posts his now-canned exhortation that we all get lives/stop posting/read books/go outside.

Silence, don't you have a job to do, instead of being the Productivity Police? It's amazing how much time people spend on the internet demanding that other people not spend time on the internet.

Some folks work nights. Some folks multitask. Some folks sit around waiting for computer programs to finish thinking for five of their nine work hours each day. Some folks might be retired.

Geez, if you're so bothered by the notion that internet discussion might progress to a deeper level than "OMG RLY!?!? U R TEH KEWLEST! I H4XX0RS J00!", then trust me, sweetcheeks, there are millions of places on the internet you can hang out if you're interested in avoiding intelligent discussion.


Liberty 11 years, 3 months ago

The reason the State likes to put people in jail and not kill them is because prisoners actually have a bond written on them to make money on. Brokerages invest in these prison bonds and they make money off of the prison system. That is why we have so many laws so there are more reasons to put people (money makers) in jail to make money on.

Topside 11 years, 3 months ago

Thanks b I figured there was a reason. But its nice that you saw through it to get my main point.

Linda Endicott 11 years, 3 months ago

I personally work all weekend, so that's why I'm here every day during the week...not that I owe anybody an explanation.

I do, however, envy all of you who are able to get online at work and visit sites like this. While I have computer access and internet access at work, it is strictly forbidden to do anything on said computers that is not work-related. And they have programs installed to monitor any computer activity. One false move on a computer, and you're outta there...

Ceallach 11 years, 3 months ago

I have lost a loved on to a violent crime. My uncle, who was 6 years my senior, was murdered at the age of 42. The criminal was given life without parole. We felt a great deal of relief knowing that he was "out of circulation." However, within a few years he was accused and convicted of mail fraud (yes, from the penitentiary), and brought to trial in KC. He escaped from the KC jail, during the three weeks it took to recapture him, my grandmother lived under armed guard because of the threats he made against her during the trial. He is back in prison but none of my family can completely relax because we know it is "possible" for him to escape again.

I am for the death penalty in cases where the guilt is beyond doubt (Daumer, Bundy, etc.), however, in cases where the verdict is determined by a jury from circumstantial evidence, I am not in favor of the death penalty -- there is a possibility of innocence.

But if someone is sitting chewing on a finger and the police find a freezer full of body parts, I think it is a travesty to drag out appeals just to keep that person alive a few more years. And yes, the cost does matter! Every dollar spent on people who are a waste of skin is a dollar that cannot be spent to maintain or improve the detention facilities. I know what is coming next, "they are mentally ill and should be cared for." Whatever their condition they are a menace to society (and to other inmates that may not be in jail for murder) and should be executed.

DaREEKKU 11 years, 3 months ago

Can we get a nonreligious Amen to Badger's post? AMEN! :-)

Ceallach 11 years, 3 months ago

Sorry, I meant to say "I have lost a loved ONE to a violent crime." I still get a little shook about the whole deal!!

Ceallach 11 years, 3 months ago

blue: the same thing happened to me. When even_money was annihilated I tried to get a signon to larryville, still no confirmation. What's that all about?

Linda Aikins 11 years, 3 months ago


You must to check the sewer link. Marion has posted what he thinks should be the official song of Lawrence.

TOB, it's all you baby.

beatrice 11 years, 3 months ago

Topside: I'm just sorry that I blew the joke. It meant to say Geraldo, with an "o" -- not Gerald, which makes no sense at all.

to badger -- eight men (close to a non-religious amen if you say it right)

I see that my boss, Silence_Dog, has logged on. Guess I better get back to work now.

ItalianMafiaPrincess 11 years, 3 months ago

Heres the @$$HOLE that killed my friend Roger.


I hope this works........I googled it and theres more then this about him.

Randy Kraft killed 16/the true count could be 67 men in Cali.

ItalianMafiaPrincess 11 years, 3 months ago didn't work people.

Anyway if you want to read about this cazy killer Google him..........Randy Kraft. The first link tells alot of him.

I miss my friend Roger alot.

ItalianMafiaPrincess 11 years, 3 months ago

Hes still alive.........I just read something at another site and hes still fricken alive the piece of @#*&.

sd123 11 years, 3 months ago

For ... If someone intentionally murdered one of my kids, I'd kill the sick ass myself! Then I'd toss the person in a crock infested swamp!

neopolss 11 years, 3 months ago

Posted by ku_law (anonymous) on February 17, 2006 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

neopolss said "Watching someone else die does not bring back a lost loved one, nor does it help create any real closure." Again, how do you know? Was someone executed for murdering one of your loved ones? I doubt it. Thus, you have no clue whether or not it creates real closure.


Curb your doubt then. Suffice to say I will not admit much, but to mention, personal, Wichita, 1981 homicide.

No, it does not create any closure. It will not heal you.

scarlets_talk 11 years, 3 months ago

I certainly believe that some people deserve to die, but I don't think our system is currently fit to judge/administer capital punishment. For one thing, race is clearly a huge issue here:

"As of October 2002, 12 people have been executed where the defendant was white and the murder victim black, compared with 178 black defendants executed for murders with white victims." (

Linda Aikins 11 years, 3 months ago

I think it was a big waste of time, Prospector.

RonBurgandy 11 years, 3 months ago

Man, it's really dying off right before 200 posts.

supermel718 11 years, 3 months ago

"That's the night that the lights went out in Georgia. That's the night that they hung an innocent man. Don't trust your soul to no backwood southern lawyer. Because the judge in the town has got blood stains on his hands. "

badger 11 years, 3 months ago

I don't think it's sad at all, really.

I think the Internet has redefined certain notions of community.

In "Amusing Ourselves to Death," Neil Postman posits the notion that since the inception of the telegraph, the photograph, and the television, the concept of social discourse as amusement has hampered the critical thought skills of a nation.

Postman wrote in the mid-80s. Now, if he could see the vast majority of the internet, he'd feel that it indeed continued the trend.

However, occasionally one finds a community, and in that community one finds people who make one think. For example, enochville posts things from the perspective of a spirituality very different from my own that often cause me to reevaluate why I think the things that I do. Many other posters ask one another questions they hadn't previously considered, and in the same way that once the salon dominated the notion of engaging in social discourse with one's educated peers, now the chat and the blog can be turned (from the more common purpose of determining the age, sex, and location of h0ttchikks88) to the possible use of interacting with those one's daily routine might not have allowed us to meet.

I have friends in cyberspace that I've never met, and several communities I frequent (as in my younger days I spent time debating in coffeeshops to hash out my philosophies) in which my beliefs, my philosophies, and my theories are challenged.

By providing the most thoughtful input I am able to give to serious questions, I hope that I can refine my own thought and communication processes, and help others refine theirs.

The newspaper doesn't require my feedback, and I labor under no delusions that anyone associated with it even cares what I say. However, it offers me an opportunity to talk with people who are reading and thinking about the same things I am, and to use a common framework to bring together those of disparate experience and outlook.

It would be 'sad' indeed if I overlooked a resource I cannot find so readily in physical space just because of prejudices regarding web interactions as somehow less valid simply because they take place completely in abstract space.

For what it's worth, I attend lectures and meetings in my physical space, and belong to a debating and philosophy society of sorts. But because like minds tend, in a geographical area, to be drawn to the same activities, I gain only fine-grained resistance, unsuitable for engendering more than the gentlest of shifts in thought.

oldfashiongirl 11 years, 3 months ago

No, I don't believe in the death penalty, neither do I think it right to give them life inprisonment, where we have to feed and clothe and give medical attention and give them a roof over their heads, far better than what most of them had before doing their dirty deeds. As always the answer to all problems you can find in the Good Book.

I used to agree that the biblical term "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" could be the measure for determining the death penalty. But reading a little further on in Matt: 5:38-48 it is the quotation of "if a man strikes your right cheek, turn to him the other also"

Further, in Deut:5:17, "thou shalt not kill." and Deut: 32:35 reads "To me belongeth vengeance, and recompense." So actually it is not in our hands to take another's life. Can you imagine all the billions of dollars spent on jails, court systems, judges, lawyers, jailers, guards, food, supplies and the like, simply because not everyone follows the rules. I don't know what the answer is, but that same money could be better spent taking care of the widows and orphans, underprivileged, peope with no health insurance, and not enough food to eat. We need to get our priorities straight.

trueninetiesgirl 11 years, 3 months ago

i am for it. but only if there is 100% proof they are the one ,that did do the crime. there have been people killed, that later found out to be not the one that did it. how do you fix that?you cant.

sunflower_sue 11 years, 3 months ago

OMB, I'll bite.

Silence, Nope, I have no job, no friends, and no life. I'm pathetic and have to get on here and pretend that a few people like me and that what I say matters. Such a sorry one, am I!

Okie dokie, Is it more humane to leave a dog chained up in a yard on dirt for it's entire life or to put it down? Just something to ponder for those that say the death penalty is immoral. I'm betting that most people would want to end the dog's pathetic life rather than to helplessly watch it suffer for years in it's backyard prison.

Nighty night, all!

Purell 11 years, 3 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.