Government exists to give us whatever we deserve, whether it's death or an egalitarian income. I think I can get into this. No more rich people. And why do moderators and message board owners deserve their lofty positions? Government will straighten out all power relationships, as part of ethically justifying the death penalty.
So gun rights aren't absolute? The NRA position is that felons should be able to own firearms. Hands down the biggest reason why conservatives are against that "invasion of privacy". Can't have it both ways. Rights aren't supposed to able to be infringed upon right? If that's the case how can the right to life be infringed upon?
This just in: You can discipline your child without spanking them. And it has MUCH more to do with the parent than the child. Bottom line, you can't teach a child not to hit by hitting them. That's just bad logic.
I don't believe the NRA believes that felons should be able to own firearms while in the midst of serving their sentence. So their position is, in fact, consistent with the tenet I stated above.
Link? Because that's a load of crap. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyp...enalty-your-tax-dollars-at-work/#40992424664b Considering The Death Penalty: Your Tax Dollars At Work It's true that the actual execution costs taxpayers fairly little: while most states remain mum on the cost of lethal injections because of privacy concerns from pharmaceutical companies, it's estimated that the drugs run about $100 (the Texas Department of Criminal Justice put the costof their drug cocktails at $83 in 2011). However, the outside costs associated with the death penalty are disproportionately higher. To begin with, capital cases (those where the death penalty is a potential punishment) are more expensive and take much more time to resolve than non-capital cases. According to a study by the Kansas Judicial Council(downloads as a pdf), defending a death penalty case costs about four times as much as defending a case where the death penalty is not considered. In terms of costs, a report of the Washington State Bar Association found that death penalty cases are estimated to generate roughly $470,000 in additional costs to the prosecution and defense versus a similar case without the death penalty; that doesn't take into account the cost of court personnel. Even when a trial wasn't necessary (because of a guilty plea), those cases where the death penalty was sought still cost about twice as much as those where death was not sought. Citing Richard C. Dieter of the non-partisan Death Penalty Information Center, Fox News has reported that studies have "uniformly and conservatively shown that a death-penalty trial costs $1 million more than one in which prosecutors seek life without parole."
Please don't be disingenuous. No felon can ever own a firearm. Their right is taken away forever and please don't say the NRA supports that...
What works for one kid won't work for all. Most parents don't follow through with any punishment these days so it doesn't really matter. Kids behave like total assholes today compared to when I grew up. You tell me why
So since this just happened and is on subject, what do you do with this kid who just shot up this school, injures many and killed a few? Numbers not clear but there are reports of fatalities. You want him to get the death penalty as well? We are talking a dude probably under the age of 18. What do you do?
When it comes to issues that don't effect you personally or ones you don't give a shit about, I encourage you to research... Failure to Deter Crime There is no evidence that the death penalty deters crime. North Carolina’s murder rate declined after executions stopped. The death penalty has failed to deliver on the much touted promise that it makes the people of North Carolina safer. Over the past several years, there has been a steep drop-off in the use of the death penalty. No one has been executed in North Carolina since 2006. The number of death sentences handed down by juries has been declining for years, and in 2012 and 2015, no one received the death penalty in North Carolina. Even prosecutors have declined to seek the death penalty in all but a handful of cases. Yet, according to the N.C. Department of Justice, the state murder rate has declined in the years since executions stopped. Given this fact, there is no credible argument that the death penalty deters crime. In the video above, a former N.C. police chief and a retired N.C. prison warden say that the death penalty serves no purpose in protecting public safety. Most people on death row committed their crimes in the heat of passion, while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or while suffering from mental illness. They represent a group that is highly unlikely to make rational decisions based on a fear of future consequences for their actions. The idea that the death penalty has the power to stop murder is naive and clearly proven false by the facts. Studies that have shown the death penalty reduces crime have been discredited by rigorous research. Nationally, murder rates are significantly lower in states that don’t use the death penalty than in those with a death penalty statute — and have been consistently for the past two decades. In some years, the murder rate in non-death penalty states was as much as 46 percent lower than in death penalty states. In a 2008 survey, police chiefs from across the country ranked the use of the death penalty at the bottom of a list of effective crime fighting tools. They said more law enforcement resources were the most needed tool for reducing violent crime.
Not a member of the NRA. Don't know what they support. However, all felons shouldn't lose their constitutional rights. There's a billion non violent felony crimes you can commit.
I'm not saying they support that. I'm saying that the NRA position of believing gun rights should be restored to felons upon completion of their sentence--while not necessarily a position with which I agree--is not inconsistent with the basic conservative position which supports government institution of the death penalty, that rights are inalienable until forfeit. You're attempting to say that one can't simultaneously hold both positions and be consistent, and I disagree with that statement.
Are you a parent? What makes you think it's some silver bullet? Try and use logic instead of your own mindset. I used to go knock on my neighbor's door and ask permission for my friend to come out and play. There's something to be said about face to face human interaction. It's valuable.
When you forfeit your life it's too late to get that constitutionally protected right back... And no you can't hold both positions. It's hypocritical.
Obviously, the right to life wouldn't be restorable when forfeit, which is why only the most extreme cases would result in that. Why does that necessarily mean that all rights when forfeit must be done so permanently? I don't see why belief in one must necessitate the other. It's not hypocrisy--it's viewing things on a spectrum.
You have a right to life until the government, who constantly overreaches, can take it away from you. #conservalogic
Your right to life exists because we have laws. Otherwise someone could take it from you today. If the death penalty is allowed by our constitution then this guy deserves it. If you don't want to follow the constitution I don't know what to tell you.
