Republicans - Abortion is wrong. Life starts at conception.

Republicans - Kill people. Death Penalty is legal, the only problem is we don't use it enough. Start more wars. Imperialism is legal, the only problem is we don't do it enough. Kill environment.

Jai, please tell me your kidding. Or that someone hacked your account.

Comparing killing an unborn baby to executing a f***ing child rapist is an insanely idiotic comparison.

Edited 2/10/2016 01:54:13

I don't think so. My position on life is very clear and consistent. We as humans are not in a position to act as an executioner. We can judge and dole out temporal punishments, but the state has no inherent Constitutional right to act as an executioner of other people and give eternal punishment. All life is sacred, from the smallest ant to the most evil human being. I would rather him rot in prison for the rest of his life in a small cell and in solitary confinement so he must think every second about the wrong he has done then give him a quick ending to his horrible crime.

^
+1

Jai- except he won't

The U.S. government will spend tens of thousands a year a year to pay these monsters to get food, water, medical bills, etc........ Money that could be spent on a lot more important things.

Better than the millions America spends on its military, that kills innocent civilians.

A Government has to put its citizens lives and National Security first.

You can't save everyone.

Sorry, life isn't happy-flappy land where everyone gets to live a beautiful life with rainbows. People are always gonna die.

Better than the millions America spends on its military, that kills innocent civilians.

+1

What national security threat justifies America spending more than the next 8 countries combined on national defense? None.

Republicans can't play it both ways. We can't say we support life and then promote the most Hawkish foreign policy that inherently puts innocent non-combatant lives in danger. ISIS terrorists deserve to die, but innocent civilians don't just because they live in the same area.

Republicans can't play it both ways. We can't say we support a smaller budget and government and then promote huge military spending.

People are always gonna die.

Agreed, but we should promote policies that doesn't promote killing for killing sake. Yes we could kill murderers and child rapists, but the whole point is that we don't. We occupy a moral high ground by showing mercy. Not forgiveness (let me be clear about this), but mercy. Jailing them in a small cell and with no freedom is punishment enough. Let's let God decide who the real sinners are.

Edited 2/10/2016 02:13:57

Wow, Jai, you really haven't checked the news recently have you?

Google "spratly islands dispute".

We as humans are not in a position to act as an executioner. We can judge and dole out temporal punishments, but the state has no inherent Constitutional right to act as an executioner of other people and give eternal punishment. All life is sacred, from the smallest ant to the most evil human being. I would rather him rot in prison for the rest of his life in a small cell and in solitary confinement so he must think every second about the wrong he has done then give him a quick ending to his horrible crime.

I think its the exact opposite of what your saying:
We as humans are in a position to act as an executioner and this is proven countless times.
No life is sacred, all life is supposed to end, some sooner then others. I would rather not have him rot in prison for the rest of his life in a small cell and in solitary confinement, because i don't care about revenge. Just kill him and be done with it (Edit: the cheapest way possible, or imprison him when that will bring money), instead of wasting tax-money.

Edited 2/10/2016 02:38:46

@Жұқтыру

1) The guardian says 4 percent of defendants sentenced to die are innocent. That's not acceptable and it's probably underrated.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/28/death-penalty-study-4-percent-defendants-innocent


2) I believe one of the many arguments to defend the death penalty is that it prevents crime.


3) Guns don't, but medicine used to kill do.


4) It's subjective indeed.


5) Death penalty does costs a lot of a hell more then just leaving people on prison..

A Seattle University study examining the costs of the death penalty in Washington found that each death penalty case cost an average of $1 million more than a similar case where the death penalty was not sought ($3.07 million, versus $2.01 million). Defense costs were about three times as high in death penalty cases and prosecution costs were as much as four times higher than for non-death penalty cases. Criminal Justice Professor Peter Collins, the lead author of the study, said, “What this provides is evidence of the costs of death-penalty cases, empirical evidence. We went into it [the study] wanting to remain objective. This is purely about the economics; whether or not it’s worth the investment is up to the public, the voters of Washington and the people we elected.” (Although Washington's death penalty was reinstated in 1981, the study examined cases from 1997 onwards. Using only cases in the study, the gross bill to taxpayers for the death penalty will be about $120 million. Washington has carried out five executions since reinstatement, implying a cost of $24 million per execution.

That's for the state of Washington. I won't search it for every american state, if you wanna, just check http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty.


6) Putting someone in prison is a way to punish people, thus making them learn and think. Killing them is just a barbaric way to get rid of someone. You lose the learn and think aspects. Plus, for some people just getting killed is a too easy way to escape from your debt towards society. Just make them work in prison to make them pay.


7) In a world were there's so many violence already, the state shouldn't participate on it.

Wow, Jai, you really haven't checked the news recently have you?

Google "spratly islands dispute".

Dude please don't patronize. I like you, but please don't talk down.

Yes I know fully well about the South China Sea territorial disputes, but the issue at stake is are those islands worth a possible military engagement with China over. This is the same china who manufacturers all our goods. This is the same China who is critical for the US in order to weaken North Korea and exert pressure on Kim Jong Un. We can't treat every foreign country with power as an enemy combatant. I don't want US lives lost defending a couple of islands for the Filipinos and Japanese because they feel threatened by a rising superpower on their border.

Also let's get some perspective: "In 2014, US military spending reached $571 billion, a huge distance ahead of second placed China's $129.4 billion."

Why can't we spend (let's say) $400 billion instead of $571 billion. We would still be spending near 4x that of China. China cannot defeat us militarily and they know that. There is no justifiable reason for spending so much on defense spending. The only net result is that it weakens our civil liberties as citizens (see Patriot Act and NSA spying) and puts more power in the hands of the Industrial-Military Complex. The neoconservatives in the Republican Party have hijacked the GOP in my opinion...which is why I'm quitting the party if Jeb, Rubio, Kasich, or Christie get the nomination.

1) The justice makes mistakes.
2) Killing a murderer doesn't reduce the crimerate in a significant way (it is proved).
3) Executions sometimes fail.
4) Not all murderers deserve to die.
5) Death penalty costs more then lifetime imprisonement.
6) Killing murderers has the sole purpose of revenge, and that is unnaceptable.
7) It is wrong for the state to kill people.

1). unavoidable, but necessary
2). Stats please. Also, please tell me you are just as likely to do something if you know you will die.
3). Not a firing squad. It's all this p***y shit lethal injections that make it unreliable
4). Yes, they do. Even if they didn't, it would be a deterrent and save future innocents lives.
5). Not a firing squad. It's all this p***y shit lethal injections that make it costly
6). The purpose is not revenge. The purpose is to act as a deterrent. If you know you will be flayed alive if you beat your wife, are you gonna beat her? It's all about deterring.
7). Says who? When you take a life, you forfeit your's

"ISIS terrorists deserve to die, but innocent civilians don't just because they live in the same area."
War is hell. People die. They don't deserve it, but it happens. Deal with it. As I have said before, brutality saves lives by ending it quickly and deterring future combatants. It's like the death penalty; if you know we slowly burn captured ISIS fighters alive, are you gonna join ISIS?

"We occupy a moral high ground by showing mercy."
That mercy is indirectly killing people. For every murderer you save, you enable another to kill without a deterrent. You place the lives of criminals above those of innocents. Where is the morality in that. Again, if you know you will forfeit your life if you murder someone, are you gonna murder them? You claim the moral high ground, but it is an illusion.

"1) The guardian says 4 percent of defendants sentenced to die are innocent. That's not acceptable and it's probably underrated."
Why do the lives of those innocents take precedence over the lives of those killed due to lack of a deterrent? Hypocrisy at its finest.

"7) In a world were there's so many violence already, the state shouldn't participate on it."
Maybe there is so much violence because criminals don't fear punishment. If it helps to prevent a murder of an innocent, killing a murderer seems reasonable.

Edited 2/10/2016 02:39:10

Or, if you know you'll get your d*** chopped off if you rape, are you going to rape?

exactly

indeed General

Oh, and the high cost per case is because they can plead that shit for so long. If we just had the one f*cking trial and then took them out front (so would-be killers are deterred) and shot them, it would cost a hell of a lot less.

"6) Putting someone in prison is a way to punish people, thus making them learn and think. Killing them is just a barbaric way to get rid of someone. You lose the learn and think aspects. Plus, for some people just getting killed is a too easy way to escape from your debt towards society. Just make them work in prison to make them pay."
It isn't really to punish them. It's to act as a deterrent. People prefer forced labor to death. Therefore, we must use death so they are deterred.

Edited 2/10/2016 02:42:41

Well not only that general but people on death row get better accommodations.

That mercy is indirectly killing people. For every murderer you save, you enable another to kill without a deterrent. You place the lives of criminals above those of innocents. Where is the morality in that. Again, if you know you will forfeit your life if you murder someone, are you gonna murder them? You claim the moral high ground, but it is an illusion.

That's an interesting point. Let's consider it:

1) Crimes of passion - these are in the heat of the moment and people aren't acting rationally or thinking about what the law says. Most likely these murders will continue despite death penalty usage.

2) Child Rape - these people are sexual deviants who feel evil urges to do these things. They are mentally ill in all likelihood and I don't see how a death penalty law will stop them. Criminals inherently think they can get away with bad things, so no law will destroy their hubris.

3) Premeditated Murder - may actually work to solve this one but I don't know if there is a statistical way to prove it.

Also we're not putting the lives of innocents below those of criminals. We're making them equal. And that's what the point is. Republicans fight hard to stop abortion because we think a fetus is equal in its value of life as a full born baby. The same way we must value an equality of life elsewhere.

No, because life isn't equal, Jai.

Every intelligent person should have the US or them mentality.

Sorry, but I just don't see all lives as equal. Innocents take precedence over criminals. I see murderers and rapists as lower than animals. I suppose we can't agree with that mindset difference however.