Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
You want me to feel sorry for people who hurt little kids and pay my tax money to give them free food and housing for life to reward them for it. I'm really unable to see where you are coming from. You obviously believe that the predators deserve a better, happier and more secure life than their victims get and that's pretty sad in my opinion. It makes me wonder if you value anything at all.
When they suspended the death penalty in Texas in the 1970s, several serial killers were released and they killed again, promises of safety by incarceration have always been lies. Their attorneys would always be there, appealing and trying to get them out, and they would get out, and they would do it again.
So you lock paedophiles up and you keep them locked up. My personal view is that these people are mentally ill, but in the absence of any cure for their condition, and given the danger they pose to the general public, I have no moral qualms with detaining them indefinitely, so long as that detention results from the due process of law.
Because of the way the Supreme Court decision came down, all of their sentences were commuted to life, but because there was always a death penalty, Texas never had life-without-parole, and there was no legal way to add it on after the fact. We were forced to release them and their collective 19 victims were murdered in-effect by the Supreme Court.You clearly aren't reading what I'm writing Clay. I said nothing about paedophiles being released - I fully support the concept of locking them up and throwing away the key. The problem Texas had wasn't that it stopped killing murderers, it was that it released them when they should have been kept inside. Of course there will be no 'safety in incarceration' in the individual in question isn't incarcerated
Now, I have not opened any doors for any 'bleeding hearts' to 'unleash' any paedophiles on society. I am in fact agreeing with you that they need to be removed from society. Where we differ is on the exact form that removal should take. Please re-read my original post if you still cannot see this.
Texas law-makers should have been smarter in drafting their law. Quite simply, legislation can be passed to make life mean life. But if you don't pass it (like Texas), you are quite right that anyone could be released again. So far, you haven't provided an argument for retaining the death sentence, only one for employing more competent legislators in Texas. 
It is frustrating to me that some people think that the worst punishment someone should ever get is a lifetime of free food and cable TV in a comfortable room. As is exists now, prison is dangerous to child molesters, but these apologists want to change that too, unless they are of the odd opinion that the state can't kill people but the inmates can.
I'm not beating him up, you know. I'm just disagreeing in strong terms. I believe I'm entitled to strongly disagree and state my disagreements without sugarcoating my reasoning.
I think it was rude of him to start the conversation by calling me uncivilised for having different values. I didn't see you leaping to my defense. That arrogant start-off was why I answered with just as much venom. Read his first response. It wasn't exactly respectful disagreement either.
*sigh* I made my point, I have nothing else to argue on the subject, my issue with Alder was off topic. I'm done.
