WrongWhether the attacker(s) are muslims or Mormons or whatever etc, they must get the death penalty.
Explain.Wrong
The death penalty is wrong under all circumstances.Explain.
You don't think terrorists who kill westerners on western soil don't deserve to die? They do in my opinion.The death penalty is wrong under all circumstances.
Given that no terrorist organisations have claimed responsibility, it's most probably a home growner you realise?You don't think terrorists who kill westerners on western soil don't deserve to die? They do in my opinion.
Yeah but you are an extremist nutter so.....You don't think terrorists who kill westerners on western soil don't deserve to die? They do in my opinion.
Your killing someone for killing someone, isn't that a contradiction." If you are saying killing is wrong, then why are you killing? It makes no sense, you are sending a wrong message to society.Explain.
What an incredibly immature opinion.The death penalty is wrong under all circumstances.
Not really. I believe deliberately and thoughtfully taking another human's life is wrong, with some limited exceptions for people, but none for the state. How is that "immature"?What an incredibly immature opinion.
There can be homegrown terrorists. They don't have to have recently came from the middle east etc.Given that no terrorist organisations have claimed responsibility, it's most probably a home growner you realise?
I'm not an extremist nutter, not sure where you pull that from?Yeah but you are an extremist nutter so.....
(PS so I guess terrorists who kill easterners on eastern ground are okay to live? Oh wait, those are westerners not terrorists)
Some crimes deserve the perpetrator be removed from society. Why should we pay to jail them forever?Your killing someone for killing someone, isn't that a contradiction." If you are saying killing is wrong, then why are you killing? It makes no sense, you are sending a wrong message to society.
It is kind of like killing someone for revenge....
Though saying that, everyone has their own moral standards.
Because studies have shown its cheaper than executing them (unless you don't care about due process$Some crimes deserve the perpetrator be removed from society. Why should we pay to jail them forever?
How is it cheaper? It costs (us, the taxpayers) more than 100k to house each prisoner per year.Because studies have shown its cheaper than executing them (unless you don't care about due process$
Wrong. The costs of keeping somebody on death row mean that their prison costs are infinitely higher. They will remain on death row for years because of the number of appeals required which cost more to do and take time (again, in California, it takes about 25 years between arrest and execution).How is it cheaper? It costs (us, the taxpayers) more than 100k to house each prisoner per year.
Executing a long term prisoner convicted of horrific crimes would cost less than 100k (a one off cost) and stop the ongoing costs for the taxpayers.
Legal costs (of prosecution, appeals etc) would remain the same.
new twitter idea: shit townie saysWrong. The costs of keeping somebody on death row mean that their prison costs are infinitely higher.
I really can't see why it should be that inefficient. You should get one appeal and that is it. Just because it is poorly run in some places doesn't mean it shouldn't occur.Wrong. The costs of keeping somebody on death row mean that their prison costs are infinitely higher. They will remain on death row for years because of the number of appeals required which cost more to do and take time (again, in California, it takes about 25 years between arrest and execution).
A prisoner in a standard prison for 20 years costs about $2 million. The average cost of executing a prisoner in California is $300 million.
Cos there's totally no chance at all they might end up killing the wrong people.I really can't see why it should be that inefficient. You should get one appeal and that is it. Just because it is poorly run in some places doesn't mean it shouldn't occur.
When the US swat teams go and arrest the Boston bomber(s) they should be loose with their triggers.
It's a little different to call of duty, you can't just restart the mission if you kill the wrong people.I really can't see why it should be that inefficient. You should get one appeal and that is it. Just because it is poorly run in some places doesn't mean it shouldn't occur.
When the US swat teams go and arrest the Boston bomber(s) they should be loose with their triggers.
+1