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.No comment..
That's ok, guys like Essex want to help them get what they wanted. Put 'em away for a month for some useless therapy, then they are "cured" enough to go rape another kid.
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.Clay, just because folks don't want these guys killed (and I'm one of them) doesn't mean we condone their actions. There are two issues at play here which you seem unable or unwilling to separate. One is that we all feel that these bastards deserve the harshest possible treatment. Another is that some of us don't feel that killing someone is an appropriate punishment for crime, as it has been proven to have no deterrent value whatsoever, is impossible to revoke in the event of wrongful conviction, and is logically inconsistent as a means of enforcing the law (in murder cases, at least).
To suggest that being against the death sentence equates to sympathy and support for paedophiles and a total lack of moral values is unfair and crass, IMHO. I fully agree that the harshest possible sanctions should be taken against these guys, but do not believe the death sentence should be one of the sanctions available. Prison isn't a reward for these guys, it's a damn good way of keeping them from re-offending without going to the lenghts of killing them
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 incarceratedSo 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.
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.
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.
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.Hey chill the **** out! Do not put words in his mouth. Just because he does not agree with the death penalty does not mean that he supports them.
You do not have to get insulting because someone holds a different point of view than you.
No where did he say that they deserve to be set free or anything. He only said he does not agree with the death penalty. That is his right!
If murder is wrong, how can it be right for the state to murder someone as a means of punishing them for murder? Does this mean that judges are in, fact, getting away with murder by virtue of their role within the judicial system? To my mind, it seems illogical and inconsistent to punish someone for a crime by then committing the crime against them. It is a very mixed and unhelpful message, IMHO.
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.
Pardon me for wanting the worst creatures on planet earth to actually pay for their crimes, rather than being paid for them.
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.It is his point of view, get over it. Just like you think they should be killed, others do not. That is their right. What is so hard to understand about that? You might want to learn that others have a right to their own opinion.
Do not take me wrong, I am a supporter of the death penalty, but this is a forum and people are going to have different views.
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.Yes you can strongly disagree, but you put words in peoples mouths and frankly get rude! That is where I draw the line!
*sigh* I made my point, I have nothing else to argue on the subject, my issue with Alder was off topic. I'm done.I don't give a tinker's damn who started it, this ends now. Capiche?
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.
Who is Eric?