43 Things

post random questions daily and see if anyone plays with me and answers them :) (read all 163 entries…)

Take a look at this fucking scum bag, Derrick Sonnier... 4 months ago

Back in 1991, this prick came on to some woman named Melody Flowers. She wasn’t interested, I guess, so he did what any other man would do, he raped her, beat her, stabbed her and then strangled her to death. And for good measure, he stabbed and killed one of her kids, Patrick.

The state of Texas killed the fucker yesterday.

I’ve been paying attention to arguments about the death penalty for more than four decades, so I’m pretty familiar with them all. But, let’s come at this from a bit different direction…

Do you think the world needs scum bag pieces of shit like this?

Jul 24, 05:43AM PDT | 3 cheers

Comments:

God

Both those links are pretty interesting.

Although they really mostly raise questions of likely innocence, I take your point, Ang, and I think it’s a good one.

Two questions, then.

What about cases in which there is no question of guilt? DNA or other absolutely conclusive evidence being extant?

And what practical alternatives to killing the scum bags would you suggest?

(By the way, insane murderers don’t make me quake with empathy, the world is better off without them, too.)

Jul 24, 11:20AM PDT | Parent | Respond to this

angniks is almost invisible- except for the hair and glasses

Yes, most of those cases are

examples where the people in question are now believed to be innocent, and if still alive, would have very good chances of being acquitted.
For your questions- I feel that, as things are now, the penalty is death, and if you do the crime while that penalty is a possibility, then yes, you should be executed. It’s the law. If you break it, you can’t claim you didn’t KNOW it was a possible outcome for you. Everyone knows that in this country. Murder someone = you may fry for it.
But the question itself is whether we should have sentences like this or not. And again, I don’t know. I see evidence that it does nothing to lower crime rates, I fear for people who are badly represented and found guilty when they are not.
On the other hand, just keeping them in jail for life, is expensive to taxpayers, and ALSO does nothing to deter crime.
Maybe the answer is humiliation, or public beatings. Although, I’m sure someone would take issue with it as being ” cruel and/or unusual punishment”.
But even a public flogging doesn’t seem fair trade for someone’s life lost. However, of all the things out there, i think that MIGHT deter people from committing crimes. Nothing like being humiliated.

Jul 24, 12:10PM PDT | Thread | Respond to this 1 cheer

God

I'm certainly not speaking for ME...

...of course…

But there ARE people who enjoy that sort of thing…

Jul 24, 12:22PM PDT | Thread | Respond to this

angniks is almost invisible- except for the hair and glasses

you know

if Seren dyed her hair black…..
I’m just sayin’.

Jul 24, 03:03PM PDT | Thread | Respond to this 1 cheer

God

LOL!

Oddly, I’ve thought much the same thing…LOL!

Jul 24, 03:08PM PDT | Thread | Respond to this

I - angniks is almost invisible- except for the hair and glasses

I'm resisting the urge to talk about... - God

oh crap - angniks is almost invisible- except for the hair and glasses

God

All good points.

One of the reasons why it doesn’t move the crime rate down, I think, is that there is virtually no connection between the crime and the punishment, with 15-20 years in between.

Actually keeping them in prison for the rest of their lives I’d support, but my idea of what a prison should be is more along the lines of a Turkish prison. Just vicious cattle in a pen.

However, I think it’s clear that what we are doing as a society sure isn’t working. Why don’t we just take, say, ten years and rapidly kill a whole bunch of these fuckers and see what happens?

How much worse can it be?

Jul 24, 12:25PM PDT | Respond to this