ZRX1200
  • ZRX1200
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
12 years ago
Liberal Democrats Introduce Bill To End Death Penalty For Treason…

Posted on Tuesday, December 17th, 2013 at 12:00 am. by: Benjamin Franklin

Via The Hill:

Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) and seven other Democrats have proposed legislation that would eliminate the possibility of imposing the death penalty for a range of federal offenses, including several categories of murder and crimes against the government like treason and espionage.

The Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act, H.R. 3741, would end the death penalty for assassination or kidnapping that results in the death of the president or vice president, and also ends it for the murder of a member of Congress.

Under the bill, the death penalty could no longer be used to punish people for using a weapon of mass destruction, or murder done via torture, child abuse, war crimes, aircraft hijackings, sexual abuse, bank robberies or the willful wrecking of a train.

Using chemical or biological materials to kill could also no longer result in the death penalty, nor could deaths related to treason or espionage. The death or injury of an unborn child could not result in the death penalty either.

Death of state or local law enforcement officials, using the mail to kill, kidnapping and killing people to stop them from testifying could no longer lead to the death penalty, nor could the use of firearms or armor piercing ammunition during any crime of violence.
View All Posts by User
fishinguitarman
12 years ago
Freakin'





















WHY?






This explains it..."Liberal Democrats"
View All Posts by User
DadZilla3
12 years ago
Basically, liberal Democrats want to abolish the death penalty for everyone but the unborn.
View All Posts by User
cacman
12 years ago
As drug makers make it more difficult for the justice system to acquire the drugs needed for the death penalty, it becomes easier for them to just abolish the death penalty.

Ever see the movie Citizen X about Russia's worst serial killer???
9mm to the back of the head. Empty casing sent to the family with an invoice for the round and burial.

Ironic the article was written by Benjamin Franklin?!?!
View All Posts by User
Abrignac
12 years ago


Bring back the firing squads. God knows the government has stock piled enough ammo.
View All Posts by User
Brewha
12 years ago

Basically, liberal Democrats want to abolish the death penalty for everyone but the unborn.

DadZilla3 wrote:


And the undead.
It's just so wrong, all this zombie killings . . . .
View All Posts by User
Buckwheat
12 years ago
I can be pretty liberal on a lot of things but I think that this isn't any good. I doubt that it will pass. JMHO. 🌫

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.
No, it doesn't. There'll be one guy left with one eye. How's the last blind guy gonna take out the eye of the last guy left?"
View All Posts by User
borndead1
12 years ago
I don't see a problem with this, honestly. The death penalty is the ultimate hypocrisy and the ultimate display of big government. It is illegal for me to kill you, but if I do, the state/Feds can kill me? WTF?
View All Posts by User
cacman
12 years ago

I dn't see a problem with this, honestly. The death penalty is the ultimate hypocrisy and the ultimate display of big government. It is illegal for me to kill you, but if I do, the state/Feds can kill me? WTF?

borndead1 wrote:


If there's no capital punishment, what's going to stop people? A slap on the wrist, time served and released because they are rehabilitated? My ass!!! Why should my tax-dollars be used to keep these people alive?

More extended time out of the nut house is granted.
John Hinckley Jr. Asks For More Time Outside Of Hospital
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26/john-hinckley-jr-hospital_n_2766209.html 

Yep… just they type of guy I want let back into the public. Do you think they would let Oswald out if he lived and claimed insanity?
View All Posts by User
borndead1
12 years ago

If there's no capital punishment, what's going to stop people? A slap on the wrist, time served and released because they are rehabilitated?

cacman wrote:




When did I say I thought they should be released?
View All Posts by User
borndead1
12 years ago
And since when has the threat of capital punishment, or any other law for that matter, stopped anyone from committing a crime? Laws are not a deterrent to crime. If laws were a deterrent to crime, nobody would be in prison. Laws are designed to punish people AFTER they commit a crime. Criminals do what they do regardless of what punishment awaits them if they are caught.

View All Posts by User
RICKAMAVEN
12 years ago

it is cheaper for society to house an inmate for life then he cost of

legally fighting the appeals in death penalty cases. in the case of pedophiles,

exposing them to the general population would be my choice.
View All Posts by User
jpotts
12 years ago


it is cheaper for society to house an inmate for life then he cost of

legally fighting the appeals in death penalty cases. in the case of pedophiles,

exposing them to the general population would be my choice.

RICKAMAVEN wrote:




Yes, because people with life sentences do not file appeals...at all...


You need to stop looking at made-up statistics.
View All Posts by User
jpotts
12 years ago

And since when has the threat of capital punishment, or any other law for that matter, stopped anyone from committing a crime? Laws are not a deterrent to crime. If laws were a deterrent to crime, nobody would be in prison. Laws are designed to punish people AFTER they commit a crime. Criminals do what they do regardless of what punishment awaits them if they are caught.

borndead1 wrote:



Punishment is a deterrent to most crime. People will weight the cost vs the benefit before engaging in an act, even if that analysis is superficial and fleeting.

If it is a pretty sure thing that is you intentionally take the life of another, your corpse would be hanging out for the crows to eat your remains then only a dedicated murderer will commit the act. On the other hand, if you know you can kill a three-year old in a drive-by shooting, maybe get 25 years, and get parole in 10...then you'll do more drive-bys.

Keeping them in jail for life is a nice thought. However, it's like saving your turds in a closet instead of flushing them down the toilet. If the stink of turds rotting in your closet doesn't do you in, the mere fact that the closet will fill to capacity in a few years time will.
View All Posts by User
frankj1
12 years ago

Punishment is a deterrent to most crime. People will weight the cost vs the benefit before engaging in an act, even if that analysis is superficial and fleeting.

If it is a pretty sure thing that is you intentionally take the life of another, your corpse would be hanging out for the crows to eat your remains then only a dedicated murderer will commit the act. On the other hand, if you know you can kill a three-year old in a drive-by shooting, maybe get 25 years, and get parole in 10...then you'll do more drive-bys.

Keeping them in jail for life is a nice thought. However, it's like saving your turds in a closet instead of flushing them down the toilet. If the stink of turds rotting in your closet doesn't do you in, the mere fact that the closet will fill to capacity in a few years time will.

jpotts wrote:


correct...only when the killers are rational thinking people, which, by definition, they are not. I agree 100% with Borndead here.

penalties may deter a potential tax cheater though. Or someone considering shoplifting underwear from Bloomingdales. Murderers, not so much.

I am against murdering/killing and when the State does it with your approval, I am unwillingly part of it. It is the ultimate hypocracy.
View All Posts by User
jpotts
12 years ago
If they are not "rational" then they are insane, which makes them mentally ill, and therefore not guilty of the crimes they commit.

No punishment will be 100% effective against deterring criminal behavior. History has proven that out. So if you are looking for a 100%, sure-fire solution to criminal behavior, you're not going to find it in either a death sentence, or a life sentence.

A life sentence only prevents the criminal from repeating their criminal behavior in a civil society so long as they are locked up.

A dead criminal cannot continue their criminal enterprise because, well, they are dead. Executions are 100% effective a preventing a repeating pattern of criminal behavior.

People looking at punishing criminals as being a deterrent to crime is half of the problem with this thread. Punishing one criminal my deter people with less testicular fortitude for the game, but it won't deter those people hell-bent on doing an evil deed. You want to send someone a message? Write it down on a piece of paper, and send it via the Post Office.

You want to prevent someone who just killed and raped three teenagers from doing the same thing again in 15 years when a bunch of mindless, bleeding-heart dolts decide that he / she is "reformed"? Well then, kill them about 60 seconds after they've been sentenced. It is a 100% guaranteed solution to that specific problem.

Really frickin' simple.
View All Posts by User
frankj1
12 years ago

If they are not "rational" then they are insane, which makes them mentally ill, and therefore not guilty of the crimes they commit.

No punishment will be 100% effective against deterring criminal behavior. History has proven that out. So if you are looking for a 100%, sure-fire solution to criminal behavior, you're not going to find it in either a death sentence, or a life sentence.

A life sentence only prevents the criminal from repeating their criminal behavior in a civil society so long as they are locked up.

A dead criminal cannot continue their criminal enterprise because, well, they are dead. Executions are 100% effective a preventing a repeating pattern of criminal behavior.

People looking at punishing criminals as being a deterrent to crime is half of the problem with this thread. Punishing one criminal my deter people with less testicular fortitude for the game, but it won't deter those people hell-bent on doing an evil deed. You want to send someone a message? Write it down on a piece of paper, and send it via the Post Office.

You want to prevent someone who just killed and raped three teenagers from doing the same thing again in 15 years when a bunch of mindless, bleeding-heart dolts decide that he / she is "reformed"? Well then, kill them about 60 seconds after they've been sentenced. It is a 100% guaranteed solution to that specific problem.

Really frickin' simple.

jpotts wrote:


I agree with a lot of what you say above, until you decide to commit murder. That's where you lose me. It's simpler than you seem to understand.

Unlike you, I am really against murder. All murder. And I never mentioned reforming murderers. I do not expect humans to come up with deterrents either.

Most murders occur in emotional situations between people that know each other, not by people cavalierly killing 3 year old bystanders because they have no fear of repercussions. Murderers need to be permanently removed from society, that will prevent repeat performances as effectively as the death penalty.

What is really frickin' simple is that I am truly against murder, you are not. The death penalty is legalized murder, and that is sooo close to an oxymoron that it makes me sick. You willingly support certain murders, I detest that. The State is not God. The State is not perfect in its judgement.

And what if the convicted is possibly innocent? Trials are by humans and humans are imperfect. No appeals can help that victim of your state. Check out how many executed murderers and others on death row are now known to have been incorrectly convicted now that modern inconveniences like DNA testing exist. Prosecutors get new contracts based on conviction percentage, not based on the truth. Keeping the convicted alive but incarcerated satisfies both arguments, unless the argument for death in 60 seconds is from rage rather than rational thought processes.


View All Posts by User
TMCTLT
12 years ago

And since when has the threat of capital punishment, or any other law for that matter, stopped anyone from committing a crime? Laws are not a deterrent to crime. If laws were a deterrent to crime, nobody would be in prison. Laws are designed to punish people AFTER they commit a crime. Criminals do what they do regardless of what punishment awaits them if they are caught.

borndead1 wrote:




Incorrect.....if ALL 57 states ( he- he ) had the death penalty on the books AND USED IT , short of the ones who are insane, I believe it WOULD be a major deterrent!! Most of these murdering pricks KNOW they will not face the death penalty.....And I do NOT blame the death penalty in whatever state on the Gov. As it only exists because The People of that state are just fine with it.
View All Posts by User
borndead1
12 years ago

Punishment is a deterrent to most crime. People will weight the cost vs the benefit before engaging in an act, even if that analysis is superficial and fleeting.

If it is a pretty sure thing that is you intentionally take the life of another, your corpse would be hanging out for the crows to eat your remains then only a dedicated murderer will commit the act. On the other hand, if you know you can kill a three-year old in a drive-by shooting, maybe get 25 years, and get parole in 10...then you'll do more drive-bys.

Keeping them in jail for life is a nice thought. However, it's like saving your turds in a closet instead of flushing them down the toilet. If the stink of turds rotting in your closet doesn't do you in, the mere fact that the closet will fill to capacity in a few years time will.

jpotts wrote:




The homicide rate in death penalty states is higher than that of non-death penalty states. The argument that capital punishment is a deterrent is simply inaccurate.
View All Posts by User
borndead1
12 years ago

Incorrect.....if ALL 57 states ( he- he ) had the death penalty on the books AND USED IT , short of the ones who are insane, I believe it WOULD be a major deterrent!! Most of these murdering pricks KNOW they will not face the death penalty.....And I do NOT blame the death penalty in whatever state on the Gov. As it only exists because The People of that state are just fine with it.

TMCTLT wrote:




The homicide rate in death penalty states is higher than that of non-death penalty states. The argument that capital punishment is a deterrent is simply inaccurate.
View All Posts by User
Users browsing this topic
Mobile! Terms | Privacy | Contact Us | Help | © 1998-2026, CigarBid.com