And who's going to pay for all of that? oh yes, the tax payers and the people who's lives they ruined.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Last Meals Of Innocent Men
- Thread starter Joel Was Right
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
And who's going to pay for all of that? oh yes, the tax payers and the people who's lives they ruined.
scar tissue
Banned
I will take 10 mistakes for 990 pieces of shit being killed.
Honestly. If someone committed a horrible crime, and there is objective evidence proving it. Such as the guy in Norway or the guy who shot up the movie theater in Colorado. They should be executed within 7 days of capture.
Stop wasting tax payers money housing, feeding and providing defense for these people.
Wow. Did I go back in time to the dark ages or what?
I don't even know where to start here.
From sacrificing innocent people to not providing legal defense for people, this is probably the worst serious post on NeoGAF I have ever read.
And what happens when you are one of those 10 mistakes? On top of that, what do we gain by killing the people you mentioned instead of keeping them in prison for life? We're certainly not saving tax payer money.
Edit:
The idea of killing them within 7 days of capture is extra barbaric.
What do you gain? It will cost over 2 million dollars of tax payers money to house the murderers that you know, without any question KILLED people. As I said, like the Colorado shooter.
Take him behind the prison, shoot him in the head, bury him in a grave somewhere. End of story.
And who's going to pay for all of that? oh yes, the tax payers and the people who's lives they ruined.
Hi,
I'm a tax payer. I'd rather not have the blood of innocent people on my hands.
Thanks,
Tax Payer
Wow. Did I go back in time to the dark ages or what?
I don't even know where to start here.
From sacrificing innocent people to not providing legal defense for people, this is probably the worst serious post on NeoGAF I have ever read.
Please stop, you are embarrassing yourself.
If you think killing someone you know objectively murdered people is "dark ages", I don't know where to begin.
WHo is footing the bill for him to live in a prison, let alone a "nice" prison as you put it, for the next 50 years? Who is footing the bill for his defense?
I never once said don't give defense to those who are on trial for murder. I said don't give defense for those you know, without any doubt, because of objective non-questionable evidence, committed horrible crimes. Such as the Colorado shooter. My main example.
Hi,
I'm a tax payer. I'd rather not have the blood of innocent people on my hands.
Thanks,
Tax Payer
It's guilty people I'm clearly talking about.
It's guilty people I'm clearly talking about.
Yet the process of executing guilty people will no doubt cause the death of innocents as well.
And who's going to pay for all of that? oh yes, the tax payers and the people who's lives they ruined.
What do you gain? It will cost over 2 million dollars of tax payers money to house the murderers that you know, without any question KILLED people. As I said, like the Colorado shooter.
Take him behind the prison, shoot him in the head, bury him in a grave somewhere. End of story.
Are you two aware of the reality of the costs associated with keeping a prisoner confined?
90TilInfinity
Member
It's guilty people I'm clearly talking about.
All those people in the OP were once deemed guilty.
Yet the process of executing guilty people will no doubt cause the death of innocents as well.
Then there's something wrong with the way they are to be found guilty and executed. Not the fact that there are executions. I'm all for executing people who are 100% guilty. People like that guy in norway should've been put down the moment he was captured.
All those people in the OP were once deemed guilty.
So they weren't guilty people, which are the people I'm talking about.
Are you two aware of the reality of the costs associated with keeping a prisoner confined?
No, but keeping dirtbags that are guilty of horrendous crimes in prison will cost more than putting them down. I rather not have my tax money go to feeding the scum of the earth.
Thanks,
A tax payer.
Please stop, you are embarrassing yourself.
If you think killing someone you know objectively murdered people is "dark ages", I don't know where to begin.
WHo is footing the bill for him to live in a prison, let alone a "nice" prison as you put it, for the next 50 years? Who is footing the bill for his defense?
I never once said don't give defense to those who are on trial for murder. I said don't give defense for those you know, without any doubt, because of objective non-questionable evidence, committed horrible crimes. Such as the Colorado shooter. My main example.
Even if you have killed some one, I still think you should have a chance to redeem yourself.
Are you two aware of the reality of the costs associated with keeping a prisoner confined?
It costs $ 47,000 a year according to California State justice system.
http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/laomenus/sections/crim_justice/6_cj_inmatecost.aspx?catid=3
This is an average that does not account for the constant defense most of them have for upwards of 30 years worth of appeals and work on their cases.
If the Colorado shooter lives another 40 years, and the cost of living stays the same (it will go up), it will cost 1,880,000 not including defense.
There were 16,277 murders in America last year.
If caught, it will cost $765,019,000 to house them for a single year in prison.
Then there's something wrong with the way they are to be found guilty and executed. Not the fact that there are executions. I'm all for executing people who are 100% guilty. People like that guy in norway should've been put down the moment he was captured.
Still have to give them a trial to make sure they aren't insane or anything.
It's guilty people I'm clearly talking about.
Hell, I don't want the blood of ANYONE on my hands. It's sickening that my tax dollars may go to euthanizing human beings if I live in a certain state.
Still have to give them a trial to make sure they aren't insane or anything.
No excuse for me. Being insane doesn't give you the right to kill/rape/whatever anyone.
Hell, I don't want the blood of ANYONE on my hands. It's sickening that my tax dollars may go to euthanizing human beings if I live in a certain state.
That's your choice and people with that mindset should be the ones paying for these GUILTY people. I don't want my tax dollars going to feeding / housing them.
Then there's something wrong with the way they are to be found guilty and executed. Not the fact that there are executions. I'm all for executing people who are 100% guilty. People like that guy in norway should've been put down the moment he was captured.
So they weren't guilty people.
So, you're okay with state sanctioned, tax payer approved, murder. Even though its existence will cause the deaths of innocents. Even though we can cheaply keep them locked away.
That's fine. However, don't claim you feel that way under the guise of protecting citizens or keeping costs low. You feel that way out of spite and revenge. Not out of some sort of duty to protect people, because we can protect them just fine without state sanctioned murder.
1. Appeals are a necessary part of a process involving state sanctioned murder. Not the fault of the prisoner. Tweaking the costly appeal system around not having state sanctioned murder would do wonders in regards to that particular cost.It costs $ 47,000 a year according to California State justice system.
http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/laomenus/sections/crim_justice/6_cj_inmatecost.aspx?catid=3
This is an average that does not account for the constant defense most of them have for upwards of 30 years worth of appeals and work on their cases.
If the Colorado shooter lives another 40 years, and the cost of living stays the same (it will go up), it will cost 1,880,000 not including defense.
There were 16,277 murders in America last year.
If caught, it will cost $765,019,000 to house them for a single year in prison.
2. While your number is a big number, in regards to the amount of money America has, it's not a drop in the bucket.
3. Most prison inmates are not there for murder. The vast amount of issues with cost when it comes to the American prison system is not due to people killing each other.
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
Then there's something wrong with the way they are to be found guilty and executed. Not the fact that there are executions. I'm all for executing people who are 100% guilty. People like that guy in norway should've been put down the moment he was captured.
Do you realize how few crimes are that cut and dry? Why is your argument for the death penalty in the face of imperfect convictions "fix the way we convict but keep the death penalty until we do"?
That's fine. However, don't claim you feel that way under the guise of protecting citizens or keeping costs low. You feel that way out of spite and revenge. Not out of some sort of duty to protect people, because we can protect them just fine without state sanctioned murder.
Yep.
grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
Please stop, you are embarrassing yourself.
If you think killing someone you know objectively murdered people is "dark ages", I don't know where to begin.
WHo is footing the bill for him to live in a prison, let alone a "nice" prison as you put it, for the next 50 years? Who is footing the bill for his defense?
I never once said don't give defense to those who are on trial for murder. I said don't give defense for those you know, without any doubt, because of objective non-questionable evidence, committed horrible crimes. Such as the Colorado shooter. My main example.
If you want to save money so bad then why not just decriminalize non-violent crimes like drug use? Seems like a better option than killing potentially innocent people.
If you want to save money so bad then why not just decriminalize non-violent crimes like drug use? Seems like a better option than killing potentially innocent people.
As I said, objectively guilty murderers should be killed ideally. Killing murderers in the current system saves little money as they are on death row for decades as it is.
The Colorado shooter is not innocent.
Do you realize how few crimes are that cut and dry? Why is your argument for the death penalty in the face of imperfect convictions "fix the way we convict but keep the death penalty until we do"?
No death penalty until 100% sure, like I keep saying.
99% = no death penalty. That's clearly not the way it works right now, but that's the way it should.
So, you're okay with state sanctioned, tax payer approved, murder. Even though its existence will cause the deaths of innocents. Even though we can cheaply keep them locked away.
That's fine. However, don't claim you feel that way under the guise of protecting citizens or keeping costs low. You feel that way out of spite and revenge. Not out of some sort of duty to protect people, because we can protect them just fine without state sanctioned murder.
You can't cheaply keep them locked away. Don't ignore the numbers I posted.
It costs more to lock away one prisoner than over 80 percent of Americans make per year.
As I said, if you locked up all 16,227 murderers in America last year alone, not counting the tenss of thousand in prison now. A single year costs American taxpayers over $760,000,000 .
I would rather have that money invested in health care and education. So you can create a more healthy, better educated society that does not turn to murder as a first option.
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
As I said, objectively guilty murderers should be killed ideally. Killing murderers in the current system saves little money as they are on death row for decades as it is.
The Colorado shooter is not innocent.
The number of cases where there truly is no doubt concerning one's guilt are so minimal that the cost savings in killing just those people is negligible. It's obvious you're just looking for satisfaction or revenge, not money savings, justice or public safety.
You can't cheaply keep them locked away. Don't ignore the numbers I posted.
It costs more to lock away one prisoner than over 80 percent of Americans make per year.
As I said, if you locked up all 16,227 murderers in America last year alone, not counting the tenss of thousand in prison now. A single year costs American taxpayers over $760,000,000 .
I would rather have that money invested in health care and education. So you can create a more healthy, better educated society that does not turn to murder as a first option.
Those costs spread out among citizens are not substantial. In addition, that's an average taking into account ALL criminals. The vast majority of costs are not associated with people who kill.
Another billion in education or health care would be great, but is not substantial in the grand scheme of things. The Dept of Education is budgeted 71.9 billion and Dept of Health and Human Services (with Medicare and Medicaid) are budgeted 940.9 billion.
That's your choice and people with that mindset should be the ones paying for these GUILTY people. I don't want my tax dollars going to feeding / housing them.
I don't think the tax code can be made precise enough to separate those who support state-sanctioned murder and those who don't.
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
I don't think the tax code can be made precise enough to separate those who support state-sanctioned murder and those who don't.
If it did we'd never have enough money for military spending. Or really anything, honestly.
As I said, if you locked up all 16,227 murderers in America last year alone, not counting the tenss of thousand in prison now. A single year costs American taxpayers over $760,000,000 .
$760,000,000 is nothing at a federal level, and that money actually goes straight into the economy (prison staff, prison operation, prison management, contractors who fix/build prisons, etc.) so it's actually kind of nice having that money.
The number of cases where there truly is no doubt concerning one's guilt are so minimal that the cost savings in killing just those people is negligible. It's obvious you're just looking for satisfaction or revenge, not money savings, justice or public safety.
This is not the case. Most cases today, in modern times, after the first cople trials, show if someone is objectivly guilty. Mainly because of the same DNA evidance that is showing all these people caught in the early 70's-90's are innocent.
Innocent people still go to prison, but the amount is far smaller today than every before.
The figure I tossed out, was for the murderers that committed murder just in 2012. $760,000,000.
It's safe to say, with over 100,000 murderers in jail. You could find 16,000 objectively guilty ones.
Meaning you would save over $760,000,000 a year killing guys much like the Colorado shooter.
With that money, within 10 years, if you county all objective murder cases. You could rebuild every single school in America and rebuild ever damaged road and bridge in the country.
I would say the trade off is worth it.
I don't think the tax code can be made precise enough to separate those who support state-sanctioned murder and those who don't.
Especially when you compare the percentage of prisoners who are not in jail for crimes which are death penalty appropriate versus those who are not.
The math would go "Tax dollars for everybody go to X non violent and violent prisoners. Then, for Y prisoners who are receiving the DP they will be kept alive with the funds from Z tax payers only."
Everybody understands that, in the big picture, Z isn't that huge of a number?
scar tissue
Banned
Please stop, you are embarrassing yourself.
If you think killing someone you know objectively murdered people is "dark ages", I don't know where to begin.
WHo is footing the bill for him to live in a prison, let alone a "nice" prison as you put it, for the next 50 years? Who is footing the bill for his defense?
I never once said don't give defense to those who are on trial for murder. I said don't give defense for those you know, without any doubt, because of objective non-questionable evidence, committed horrible crimes. Such as the Colorado shooter. My main example.
I'm absolutely sure I'm not the one embarrassing myself here.
The state should not execute any, ever. Not even if he is, by some supernatural means, 100% proven guilty.
As for the cost, we could let many of these people do manual labor. Chain them to a post next to a conveyor belt and let them work. If they do their job well, they get certain privileges.
DNA evidence is notoriously unreliable. In a single city, you might have a dozen or more people who would get you a match. And that's not even taking the planting of samples into account.This is not the case. Most cases today, in modern times, after the first cople trials, show if someone is objectivly guilty. Mainly because of the same DNA evidance that is showing all these people caught in the early 70's-90's are innocent.
Innocent people still go to prison, but the amount is far smaller today than every before.
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
With that money, within 10 years, if you county all objective murder cases. You could rebuild every single school in America and rebuild ever damaged road and bridge in the country.
Rebuild every road, bridge and school in America with $7.6B over ten years? You really have no idea what you're talking about.
And holy shit you're talking about DNA evidence being part of your definition of "objectively guilty"? Fuck off with that.
That's only a billion dollars. And that number is being decided without taking into account the amount of the average that is consisting of non violent prisoners and prisoners that commit violent crimes that are not worthy of the death penalty.This is not the case. Most cases today, in modern times, after the first cople trials, show if someone is objectivly guilty. Mainly because of the same DNA evidance that is showing all these people caught in the early 70's-90's are innocent.
Innocent people still go to prison, but the amount is far smaller today than every before.
The figure I tossed out, was for the murderers that committed murder just in 2012. $760,000,000.
It's safe to say, with over 100,000 murderers in jail. You could find 16,000 objectively guilty ones.
Meaning you would save over $760,000,000 a year killing guys much like the Colorado shooter.
With that money, within 10 years, if you county all objective murder cases. You could rebuild every single school in America and rebuild ever damaged road and bridge in the country.
I would say the trade off is worth it.
And your math isn't correct, more so, using your foolish example because not EVERY killer is a serial mass murderer. Unless you're suggesting life for a life.
I'M FINISHED!
Um exCUSE me Sakurai but CLEARLY the best choice for Smash Bros would be my fav niche character HOWEVER you are clearly INCOMPETENT and
So are there people in this thread that would have pushed the button in the Dark Knight's ferry scene? Damn, Joker always bets on the winner.
Rebuild every road, bridge and school in America with $7.6B over ten years? You really have no idea what you're talking about.
And holy shit you're talking about DNA evidence being part of your definition of "objectively guilty"? Fuck off with that.
No, I didn't say rebuilt every road. I said repair damaged roads. I also said if every objectively guilty person is executed (over 50,000). It is not just DNA evidence that makes someone objectively guilty.
In Canada, we house our prisoners in shit holes, then invest lots of money into the education system and infrastructure. Which is why we are one of the safest countries in the entire world, just named the most educated country in the world, and are not a cess pool of crime like America is.
You guys should give it a shot. Can't get much worse than it is now.
We were going to execute our objectively guilty murders in the early 70's, but there are so few it was not worth it.
LyleLanley
Banned
I really hope that as a country we can find a better way of funding our schools and infrastructure than taking our prisoners out back and shooting them in the head.
"Objectively Guilty"... I seriously doubt you could find 50,000 people where there isn't the tiniest shred of doubt about their guilt.
"Objectively Guilty"... I seriously doubt you could find 50,000 people where there isn't the tiniest shred of doubt about their guilt.
You're all over the place now.No, I didn't say rebuilt every road. I said repair damaged roads. I also said if every objectively guilty person is executed (over 50,000). It is not just DNA evidence that makes someone objectively guilty.
In Canada, we house our prisoners in shit holes, then invest lots of money into the education system and infrastructure. Which is why we are one of the safest countries in the entire world, just named the most educated country in the world, and are not a cess pool of crime like America is.
You guys should give it a shot. Can't get much worse than it is now.
We were going to execute our objectively guilty murders in the early 70's, but there are so few it was not worth it.
Your math is crap so now you're calling America a cesspool of crime because we give our prisoners too many luxuries?
Yeah, that's why people are just chomping at the bit to get locked up.
I really hope that as a country we can find a better way of funding our schools and infrastructure than taking our prisoners out back and shooting them in the head.
"Objectively Guilty"...
You won't. Your political system is more of a joke than ours.
That said, ending the war on drugs would be an alternative. You guys are just way closer to killing murderer than ever ending the way on drugs. If Obama won't do it, nobody is going to.
You're all over the place now.
Your math is crap so now you're calling America a cesspool of crime because we give our prisoners too many luxuries?
Yeah, that's why people are just chomping at the bit to get locked up.
My math really isn't. I posted where it all comes from. unless the California State Justice Department is a horrible place. Not sure.
Also, many people in the inner cities of America absolutely do not care if they go to prison.
paradise_circus
Member
to kill someone for economics reasons is sick.
Woody Invincible
Banned
So are there people in this thread that would have pushed the button in the Dark Knight's ferry scene? Damn, Joker always bets on the winner.
I would have pushed that button so hard, so fast.
to kill someone for economics reasons is sick.
I never said kill them for economic reasons. I said kill them because they are animals. People like the Colorado shooter, for example.
Economic benefits is only a side effect of it. One I am pointing out.
Seems to be a trend on this website that when you have no counter argument, you put words into someones mouth. Has happened almost 7 times in the past two pages.
My math really isn't. I posted where it all comes from. unless the California State Justice Department is a horrible place. Not sure.
Also, many people in the inner cities of America absolutely do not care if they go to prison.
It is crap. I'm not even going to get into your comment about the people living in the inner cities.
I'm being generous and rounding your number, which is already rounded up because it's based off of one the more expensive states among fifty.
So, your number is a billion. A billion per year.
Even if your number is exactly the amount of money we'd save murdering the average number of murderers per year, that's still only a billion in a budget of over THREE TRILLION EIGHT HUNDRED THREE BILLION. Your one billion is insignificant to the realities of the American budget.
Your math about it being a significant economic benefit, good sir, is crap. I'd switch up your argument about our cesspool.
I never said kill them for economic reasons. I said kill them because they are animals. People like the Colorado shooter, for example.
Economic benefits is only a side effect of it. One I am pointing out.
Seems to be a trend on this website that when you have no counter argument, you put words into someones mouth. Has happened almost 7 times in the past two pages.
Society saying murdering somebody is a just punishment is society taking out the very action it is punishing against. You don't see how that's a bit of a problem?
paradise_circus
Member
I never said kill them for economic reasons. I said kill them because they are animals. People like the Colorado shooter, for example.
Economic benefits is only a side effect of it. One I am pointing out.
Seems to be a trend on this website that when you have no counter argument, you put words into someones mouth. Has happened almost 7 times in the past two pages.
i was referring to feature, because his last comments were justified with economics reasons
I never said kill them for economic reasons. I said kill them because they are animals. People like the Colorado shooter, for example.
Economic benefits is only a side effect of it. One I am pointing out.
Seems to be a trend on this website that when you have no counter argument, you put words into someones mouth. Has happened almost 7 times in the past two pages.
So you're a bloodthirsty psychopath who's ravenous appetite for what you want to call 'justice' is only sated by ending the life of other murderers?
Omegasquash
Member
I support the death penalty in cases where evidence is conclusive beyond the shadow of a doubt and there's eye-witness testimony AND there's DNA evidence AND the alleged victim was caught red handed. A blight on society is a blight on society, especially if we can learn nothing from them.
That said, the talk of saving money by killing is just off...I think that we should invest more money to investigate crimes, more time in ensuring that test results and other evidence is conclusive. It should NEVER be cheap to end a life, ever. It should cost a ton of time and money, because a life is worth investigating.
Again, I support the death penalty, but I do not think our system is currently tight enough to warrant its use.
That said, the talk of saving money by killing is just off...I think that we should invest more money to investigate crimes, more time in ensuring that test results and other evidence is conclusive. It should NEVER be cheap to end a life, ever. It should cost a ton of time and money, because a life is worth investigating.
Again, I support the death penalty, but I do not think our system is currently tight enough to warrant its use.
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
I never said kill them for economic reasons. I said kill them because they are animals. People like the Colorado shooter, for example.
Economic benefits is only a side effect of it. One I am pointing out.
Seems to be a trend on this website that when you have no counter argument, you put words into someones mouth. Has happened almost 7 times in the past two pages.
You keep going back to the Colorado shooter as if he is representative of some large portion of the prison population. You know he's not and I think you go back to him again and again because you want to get people thinking along the lines of a revenge based penal system.
Kenshin001
Member
And how do you determine that there's no doubt?
The answer is that you can't.
Convictions are only supposed to happen beyond a reasonable doubt. However, that doesn't mean convictions don't happen even in the presence of reasonable doubt. Nor does it mean that you don' t have false convictions. Because just because there is no room for reasonable doubt does not mean an unreasonable doubt isn't the truth. Nor does it mean that you are correct.
Saying "Well, only use the death penalty when you're absolutely sure of it!" is nice, but the point of the justice system is to convict only when you're certain of guilt. That's not a fail safe.
Did you just ignore the quote I put in my post?
Dahmer attacked a man with a knife but the man escaped and waved down some police. When the police went to his apartment they found human remains all over his apartment, photos of his mutilated victims and a human head in his fridge. So yes you can determine there is no doubt, unless you want to be silly and say someone put them there while he wasn't looking and he did not notice the human head in his fridge.
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
I support the death penalty in cases where evidence is conclusive beyond the shadow of a doubt and there's eye-witness testimony AND there's DNA evidence AND the alleged victim was caught red handed. A blight on society is a blight on society, especially if we can learn nothing from them.
Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable.
It is crap. I'm not even going to get into your comment about the people living in the inner cities.
I'm being generous and rounding your number, which is already rounded up because it's based off of one the more expensive states among fifty.
So, you're number is a billion. A billion per year.
Even if your number is exactly the amount of money we'd save murdering the average number of murderers per year, that's still only a billion in a budget of over THREE TRILLION EIGHT HUNDRED THREE BILLION. Your one billion is insignificant to the realities of the American budget.
Your math, good sir, is crap. I'd switch up your argument about our cesspool.
No. It's a billion a year to house every murderer in 2012 alone, 16,227. Lets say there are 100,000 murders locked up for arguments sake. There are actually more than that, but we will low ball it just for you.
We will be using the numbers presented here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States which have references.
In 2005, on average, it costs $$23,876 a year to house state prisoners. We all know private prisons charge the government far more. In California it was $47,000. It increased $19,000 between 2001-2009.
For this example, we will not count inflation. We will assume no matter where you are in America, it costs $23,876 a year. Not including any legal defense (which can be between $10,000 - $100,000 depending). The number below, as you know, will be out by billions of dollars, but it will get the point across.
Assuming only 100,000 murders in prison. To house them for 1 single year it would cost $2,370,000,000. This does not count the 500,000 people in jail awaiting trial.
Now, as I stated, the economic benefits are not why you kill objectively guilty people. DNA evidence, also does not make you objectively guilty. You kill these people, like the Colorado shooter, for example, because there is no societal benefit to keep them alive.
Now, provide me with an argument as to the societal benefit of keeping the Colorado shooter alive. An argument that is not a judgement call based on personal beliefs or morals.
Omegasquash
Member
Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable.
Yup, which is why it has to be supported by DNA evidence AND being caught red handed. The shadow of doubt is not cast far enough to sentence a man to die, IMO. In what I would venture are far and away most death sentences, I strongly doubt that there was enough evidence there to warrant the sentence.
So, in the case where eye witness account is doubted at all, then even with DNA evidence and being caught in the act, the sentence shouldn't be death. Shouldn't be an option.
Leads to lots and lots of life sentences I'm sure, but I'd rather give a person life when erring on the side of caution than willingly kill him because I'm "pretty sure" he did it.
Now, provide me with an argument as to the societal benefit of keeping the Colorado shooter alive. An argument that is not a judgement call based on personal beliefs or morals.
Keeping him alive provides government funds into a prison which employs multiple people at higher than minimum wage.
What you're saying is you want to kill murderers and kill American jobs.
Tsk tsk I say.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.