4 Officers shot near Lakewood WA

[RabidPony]

I'm not questioning the legal system. I'm questioning the people behind it. The greatest, most philanthropic idea in the world with always fail, not because of the ideal, but because of people. The ideals that our legal system and our laws (most of them) embody are good, and at the risk of sounding cliche again, just. But the people we trust to carry them out as they were intended, are not always as good and just. Lawyers, judges, politicians, and sadly even officers themselves do not always have the best interests of the people in mind when carrying out the letter of the law. Some of them take these good ideals and twist them and bend them to their own benefit and often to the detriment of the very people that they swore to serve and protect. Please do not confuse my disdain for these corrupt officials for a disregard of our justice system. Instead, see it as a desire to see the system run as it was meant to be, by people as good and just as the laws they are sworn to uphold.

As far as me believing that criminals should be disposed of rather than coddled, yes, it's harsh. It is a rather extreme idea and frankly one that even I would not put forth as evan a proposed policy. I do feel though that it is unfair to force hard working people who work for their money and pay their taxes to pay to care for these criminals. Even if we only took the worst of the worst, career criminals who have been convicted again and again, people who know nothing but violence, killers who have no chance of redemption and not even the faintest illusion of innocence. Even if we took only those and did away with them once and for all. It would free up a lot of resources that could be much better used. Don't even get me started on these people who sit on death row for 20, 30, 40, plus years and never receive their punishment.

Take my words for what they are. My beliefs and opinions. Nothing more, nothing less. Though they may differ from yours I would ask that you respect them as such as I do yours. Now, let's let this thread get back to what it was intended for and if you wish to discuss this further then feel free to PM me. I came here to learn about my VehiCROSS, not publicly air my political views.

Or in this case, Autocrat. Call me crazy but I withhold my endorsement of granting the government the power to summary execution. I find it disconcerting when people in one breath complain about the government's use of their taxes, and in the next grant the the most extraordinary power.

And in regards to this, I have no desire or aspirations what-so-ever to any position of power and I certainly don't advocate anyone, let alone the government, having the power of summary execution. I just feel that if someone is beyond redemption, why wast the time, effort, and resources to lock them in a cell and let them live out their life? You get convicted, you get one appeal, then you serve your sentence. If it's a death sentence, they are put to death and not put in jail for another 20 plus years before the sentence is carried out. And I think a life sentence, especially life without parole, is just counterproductive. Do away with the life without parole option and just make it a bit more difficult to attain the death penalty. Just if the death penalty is still called for after the appeal is settled, actually carry it out.

[Osteomata]

Wait, are you seriously saying that we should let this thread return to the original topic, and then you go back ten minutes later and edit your response to ADD another parapraph in defense of your opinions? Seriously?

I ask again, who will determine which of these criminals is "beyond redemption" and therefore should be subject to execution? Might it be the same flawed judges, lawyers and law enforcement officers that you mentioned in a previous post?

Your 20 year example is silly. Of course you pick the most extreme examples and highlight them as if they are the norm. The overwhelming majority of executed prisoners die at the hands of the state WELL before your arbitrary 20 year mark.

And if we do away with the life without parole and simply make the death penalty "a bit more difficult", doesn't the "a bit more difficult" part of that statement directly imply a bit more protection from abuse, i.e., more due process protection? Or should we proceed directly from trial to execution ala your original argument?

And in regards to this, I have no desire or aspirations what-so-ever to any position of power and I certainly don't advocate anyone, let alone the government, having the power of summary execution. I just feel that if someone is beyond redemption, why wast the time, effort, and resources to lock them in a cell and let them live out their life? You get convicted, you get one appeal, then you serve your sentence. If it's a death sentence, they are put to death and not put in jail for another 20 plus years before the sentence is carried out. And I think a life sentence, especially life without parole, is just counterproductive. Do away with the life without parole option and just make it a bit more difficult to attain the death penalty. Just if the death penalty is still called for after the appeal is settled, actually carry it out.

[don moore]

were is HOT WASBI JUNKY when you need him.

[circmand]

Wait, are you seriously saying that we should let this thread return to the original topic, and then you go back ten minutes later and edit your response to ADD another parapraph in defense of your opinions? Seriously?

I ask again, who will determine which of these criminals is "beyond redemption" and therefore should be subject to execution? Might it be the same flawed judges, lawyers and law enforcement officers that you mentioned in a previous post?

Your 20 year example is silly. Of course you pick the most extreme examples and highlight them as if they are the norm. The overwhelming majority of executed prisoners die at the hands of the state WELL before your arbitrary 20 year mark.

And if we do away with the life without parole and simply make the death penalty "a bit more difficult", doesn't the "a bit more difficult" part of that statement directly imply a bit more protection from abuse, i.e., more due process protection? Or should we proceed directly from trial to execution ala your original argument?

Very few state do a quick death penalty, some states do not do it at all and then 1 idiot governor can pardon murders, see this case, and see Wisconsin I beleive where he took everyone off death row so that even though the state and its process allow it 1 person corrupted it. Those people the system condemned to death now no longer face their rightful penalty and cannot have it reimposed unless they kill again. This idiot was given life in prison and then a few people say oh thats to harsh and parole him and what happens 4 more dead.