Not Willing to Lose? You’re a Loser

[Nick M]

Well, the reason I say that is because you support the DP right?

For those that commit the crimes worthy of execution.

 

[illusionray]

An unreasonable standard. No human system will ever be able to establish guilty perfectly. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is the best we will ever be able to do. If you insist on that standard, then to be consistent you must insist on that standard for all penalties for all crimes. I'm sorry but the only reason the anti-death penalty crowd demands this standard is because it sounds nice and it isn't immediately obvious that it's utterly impossible.

If you want to be honest then you shouldn't set impossible standards. If you want to be consistent then you should apply your standard across the board. You don't do either and that strongly indicates your rejection of the death penalty is an emotional decision, rather than a rational one. Now, that's fine but people who want to make this decision rationally are going to recognize this argument as non-rational and quite rightly reject it.

If you want to know the consequences of a lack of a death penalty, you just have to look at the UK. People are now being killed in broad daylight in front of dozens of bystanders and the murderers are happy to admit their murder in court because they know they will only get 12 years maximum, which they would look forward to serve because they have nothing to live for anyway. Meals, entertainment, gym all provided free of charge for convicted murderers and now they're debating whether or not to let them vote in the general election.

 

[Arthur Brain]

For those that commit the crimes worthy of execution.

Well, leaving aside homosexuals and adulterers just how would you go about ensuring that only the guilty would receive it? If you support the DP under the present system then you're tolerating innocent people being inevitably put to death, no two ways about that.

 

[Arthur Brain]

If you want to know the consequences of a lack of a death penalty, you just have to look at the UK. People are now being killed in broad daylight in front of dozens of bystanders and the murderers are happy to admit their murder in court because they know they will only get 12 years maximum, which they would look forward to serve because they have nothing to live for anyway. Meals, entertainment, gym all provided free of charge for convicted murderers and now they're debating whether or not to let them vote in the general election.

Oh, our system sucks in many ways. Too many loopholes and ridiculous sentencing etc. I'm for a complete overhaul and tightening up but if you think having the DP would magically affect crime then there's no solid evidence for this. It would however lead to innocent people being killed - aka the 'Birmingham Six' & the 'Guildford Four' just to note two famous high profile cases out of many.

 

[illusionray]

Oh, our system sucks in many ways. Too many loopholes and ridiculous sentencing etc. I'm for a complete overhaul and tightening up but if you think having the DP would magically affect crime then there's no solid evidence for this. It would however lead to innocent people being killed - aka the 'Birmingham Six' & the 'Guildford Four' just to note two famous high profile cases out of many.

An execution means that a murderer cannot kill again, it's as simple as that. One is enough, you don't get a second chance. You don't arrange murders from inside prison walls. You don't kill within prison walls (that should be an extra judicial killing right there). You don't live a life of comfort whilst the victim is with the Almighty. That is the message that needs to be sent. UK is the the CCTV capital of Europe, where there are a high number of witnesses or it is caught on CCTV they need to go straight into the afterlife. Such as scum like these: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24714122 I don't want my tax money sustaining the unsustainable. Instead of building more and more prisons to cope with the increases in crime, they need to quite literally wield the axe. Give them up to the Almighty.

 

[Arthur Brain]

An execution means that a murderer cannot kill again, it's as simple as that. One is enough, you don't get a second chance. You don't arrange murders from inside prison walls. You don't kill within prison walls (that should be an extra judicial killing right there). You don't live a life of comfort whilst the victim is with the Almighty. That is the message that needs to be sent. UK is the the CCTV capital of Europe, where there are a high number of witnesses or it is caught on CCTV they need to go straight into the afterlife. Such as scum like these: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24714122 I don't want my tax money sustaining the unsustainable. Instead of building more and more prisons to cope with the increases in crime, they need to quite literally wield the axe. Give them up to the Almighty.

Er, yeh, hence my whole support of tightening up the loopholes and inadequacies of the present system. You don't solve that by executing innocent people, unless you think that's acceptable 'collateral damage' or something?

 

[Nick M]

Don't be so naive my friend, the Ramsey's are guilty.

While much of the article linked below was covered in Enyart's article, other parts were not.

Someone is getting away with murder


10) The ME's examine reveled that there was scaring on JonBenet's uterus that could only have come from ongoing sexual molestation/abuse. Blue FIBERS were found in the VAGINA that did not match anything in the house. There were CELLULOSE Particles in the VAGINA as well, possibly from a paint brush handle. The coroner, Dr. John Meyer, found evidence of sexual assault from the previous night: a small abrasion and small amounts of blood in both her underwear and vagina. Three medical experts consulting for the police say that the injuries were also consistent with prior sexual abuse. A black light helped reveal that her body had been wiped clean but that a residue of blood was left on her thighs. Dr. Robert Kirschner of the University of Chicago's pathology department went even further, pointing out that her vaginal opening was twice the normal size for six-year-olds. He stated, "The genital injuries indicate penetration, not only (previously) by a penis, but by another instrument and are evidence of molestation that night as well as previous molestation." "If she had been taken to a hospital emergency room, and doctors had seen the genital evidence, her father would have been arrested."

(13) In the two years prior to her death, Jonbenet made 33 trips to the pediatrician, diagnosis was "yeast infections". Yeast infections for a child of four to six years old? I've been told that is not possible.
http://someoneisgettingawaywithmurder.blogspot.com/2011/03/jonbenet-ramsey-murder-investigator.html

thorough investigation did not uncover allegations of past abuse. An autopsy determined that there was no evidence of long-term sexual abuse, Smit said.

“There was not one instance of physical or sexual abuse,” he said. “You just don’t turn into something overnight. Usually you have some inkling. John would call his kids when he was on the road. His ex-wife said he was a good father.

Your "evidence" is a lot like liberal evidence of it being "Bush's fault".

 

[Nick M]

Well, leaving aside homosexuals and adulterers just how would you go about ensuring that only the guilty would receive it?

Murder is not a hard crime to solve. Serial killers are rare, and they move the body from where the murder happened to someplace else. Ted Bundy killed strangers.

If murders get pulled from death row and executed in a swift fashion, the murders will stop, as the people stop acting presumptuously.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Murder is not a hard crime to solve. Serial killers are rare, and they move the body from where the murder happened to someplace else. Ted Bundy killed strangers.

If murders get pulled from death row and executed in a swift fashion, the murders will stop, as the people stop acting presumptuously.

Er, yeah, it's all just like a game of 'Cluedo' Nick. :freak:

The simplistic stupidity of this is just beyond any appropriate description.
Wow, just...wow.

lain:

 

[Nick M]

Someone is getting away with murder

And the father is exempt, 100%.

 

[Nick M]

Er, yeah, it's all just like a game of 'Cluedo' Nick.

Because you have studied the subject in depth, right?

Anyway, here are a few more points from John E. Douglas, author of the famous book, Mindhunter.

(a) There was no physical evidence linking John and Patsy to the homicide, and physical evidence found near JonBenét's body suggested the presence of an unidentified person in the Ramsey home.

(b) There was no plausible motive for the Ramseys to kill their daughter. Douglas regarded the bed-wetting hypothesis as so unprecedented as to verge on absurdity and furthermore inconsistent with Patsy's established behavior.

(c) There was no evidence of physical abuse, neglect, sexual molestation, or serious personality disorders in the Ramsey household prior to the murder, some combination of which are associated with most cases of children killed by parents.

(d) The behavior of John and Patsy Ramsey after the crime was consistent with the parents of other murdered children, and was inconsistent with known cases of parents who killed their children.

 

[illusionray]

Er, yeh, hence my whole support of tightening up the loopholes and inadequacies of the present system. You don't solve that by executing innocent people, unless you think that's acceptable 'collateral damage' or something?

How the hell is that guy innocent? What a wum.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Your "evidence" is a lot like liberal evidence of it being "Bush's fault".

It's been nearly 17 years since the murder of little Jon Benet Ramsey. I followed the case after it happened and came to a conclusion based on what lead detective Steve Thomas said.

After reading various theories yesterday, I truly believe that there was no sexual assault on JBR (the FBI stated there was no evidence of past abuse), but there was a cover up by her parents after Patsy accidentally killed her daughter in a fit of rage.

"After a long day that included an argument with her daughter over what JonBenét would wear to Christmas dinner, Patsy Ramsey, harried and irritated about getting ready for a holiday trip she didn't really want to make, and distraught over her upcoming 40th birthday, found that the child had wet her bed - again.

Thomas contends that as she cleaned up after JonBenét's accident, Patsy Ramsey wiped her daughter too roughly - which he believes accounts for the appearance of sexual abuse, and "there was some sort of explosive encounter in the child's bathroom ... I believed JonBenét was slammed against a hard surface, such as the edge of the tub, inflicting a mortal head wound." Then the former Miss West Virginia panicked, Thomas theorizes. And Patsy Ramsey cooked up the whole kidnapping, wrote the ransom note, tied cord - loosely, according to Thomas - around JonBenét's wrists, wrapped a cord around the child's neck and put tape over her mouth, then carefully wrapped her in a blanket to cover up what Thomas believes initially was an accident."


http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon041000a.htm

 

[Arthur Brain]

How the hell is that guy innocent? What a wum.

Who said he was? And how is quoting one case addressing the problem of miscarriages of justice exactly?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Because you have studied the subject in depth, right?

Anyway, here are a few more points from John E. Douglas, author of the famous book, Mindhunter.

Saying that murder is a 'relatively easy crime to solve' is just flat out dumb Nick. Some are depending, many aren't.

 

[Nick M]

It's been nearly 17 years since the murder of little Jon Benet Ramsey. I followed the case after it happened and came to a conclusion based on what lead detective Steve Thomas said.

And he is demonstrably wrong. Are you intentionally ignoring what expert detectives said after reviewing what that liberal moron said?

Fit of rage over what? Where was all this rage beforehand? OJ had a history of beating Nicole, incase you need something to which you can compare.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

And he is demonstrably wrong. Are you intentionally ignoring what expert detectives said after reviewing what that liberal moron said?

All of the evidence just doesn't add up for an outside intruder to be the murderer.

We can go over the long list if you wish (the Ramsey's attempt to frame innocent people for the crime, etc.).

Fit of rage over what? Where was all this rage beforehand? OJ had a history of beating Nicole, incase you need something to which you can compare.

Bed-wetting.

Unlike the OJ Simpson case where he brutally murdered his wife and her male friend, this murder started out as a case of manslaughter.

 

[Granite]

I've always thought Douglas's assessment of the Ramseys and his analysis of the case to be extremely convincing. This is a man who dealt with monsters his entire career. (He dedicates a chapter to his involvement in the case in his book The Cases That Haunt Us.) He knows them, arguably, better than anyone in the world. The idea that he got duped by two criminals who murdered their daughter impulsively and then managed to fool the foremost profiler in history beggars belief.

The Ramseys didn't murder their daughter. And barring a conclusive confession or some new revelation, it's looking like we'll never know who did.

 

[Lighthouse]

Granite probably thinks OJ was innocent, too.

 

[Granite]

Then there's the palm print. The shoe print. The DNA...

Insisting, after all this time, given the preponderance of evidence against the idea, that the Ramseys murdered their daughter strikes me as simply vicious, mean-spirited, and spiteful for its own sake.