NEWS: Youre Gonna Die Before You Die, Motherfucker!

thread over. this wins.

Okay....callow and callous are two entirely separate and rather disparate things. Lumping them together bothers me. That is all.

we are talking about murderers here, correct? not relatively harmless pot-heads, thief's etc...? why should innocent police, hospital staff, prison staff, or citizens have to risk their lives to restrain, feed, and clothe someone who has already proven their willingness and ability to kill / rape innocent people. do these (innocent) peoples lives mean anything to you? with all the people in this world that do deserve your sympathy, why give it to a killer?

Did not say that Sir Turgid Brains.

I say that that if you put a corrections officer on the spot where he cannot rely on the criminal justice system to protect him and his family by applying real additional punishment (for a crime committed against the officer or his family), such as death, to an inmate serving life in prison, then he would be so justified.

Torture would be one alternative, but added time onto a for real life sentence is no punishment at all.

If the law will not protect people, then they are justified in protecting themselves as needed. That includes corrections officers and other inmates and private citizens.

sez u

I'm not lumping them at all. As I recall and as I meant, I said either callous, or callow as below defined in that either he is a being a callous SOB as to the plight of the inmates and staff of the prison who have to live around maniacs like that, or he is too callow and green to understand what he is suggesting..

cal·low Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kal-oh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective
1. immature or inexperienced: a callow youth.

cal·lous Show Spelled Pronunciation[kal-uhs] Pronunciation Key adjective

2. insensitive; indifferent; unsympathetic: They have a callous attitude toward the sufferings of others.

Of course, if I had six months of suffering ahead of me, I'd quite possibly be laughing at the penal system (and not just because the word "penal" sounds funny) because they'd be SAVING me from the suffering.

An yes, they would. We are all trained in medicine to follow the same steps in procedures to ensure consistency and minimize errors.

Also, a medical practitioner is not allowed to treat a condemned criminal on whom s/he is performing a procedure any differently than anyone else. this is called professional ethics, and although it may seem pointless, it is part of the standard, and if it wasn't followed, some hungry lawyer would sue for malpractice.

Also, the astringent properties of isopropyl seem to help less-than-ideal veins become more "hittable."

Thast's what I'm saying. If I were sentenced by Life to die a slow and agonizing Death over 6 months, I doubt I'd be appealing the lethal injection.

I'm not speaking for the convict, nor am I condoning the subject of this story, and I am definitely not condoning the Death Penalty, but after watching my Father and so many patients suffer, I myself might prefer a quick, clean Death to the alternative.

And I would certainly be laughing at anyone claiming them killing me before I die was revenge, since for me, revenge has always entailed INSTITUTING or INCREASING suffering, not relieving it.

Notice how he said, "I do not take meds for any mental conditions." Not: "I have never been prescribed meds for any mental or conditions," or "I have never been ordered by the court to take meds for any mental conditions."

Draw your own conclusions.

Not a chance. And I stick needles in people every working day, and have for years.

This very thought has plagued me for as long as I can remember. In Florida, when DNA testing became available for Death Penalty cases in which there was reason to believe DNA would proove a condemned convict's innocence, the Statgave a deadline by which all such testing must be completed or that's that. They made sure the deadline was way too close for anything to be accomplished, though.

OH, and I noticed people saying the Death Penalty had racial preferences. ??? I'm not denying it; I'd just like to see some reliable stats (sort of a contradiction in terms: "Reliable stats"), as most of the ones I see being executed in my local paper are white, with a couple hispanics thrown in.

I have never been ordered or required or even advised by any court to take any medications of any type for any reason.

I have never been prescribed medications for any mental condition other than once for a short bout of purely situational depression many years ago which was resolved in less than a year by a divorce.

Thank you for your support of Ron Paul 2008.

"Sir Turgid Brains"? Wow. You're quite the debater.

And if you're not saying "that" - even while continually insisting on some mysterious "justification" for doing exactly "that" - then you're not saying anything, and can shut up now.

well, duh.

I sure am.

If you and other death penalty opponents put people into a no-win situation like that you have only yourselves to blame, especially if you are not willing to do the sort of work required (be a corrections officer, or work at a prison with them).

In other words put up or shut up. If you will not do that kind of work then you have no standing to object when the corrections officer does what he sees as needed to protect his life or that of a fellow corrections officer or their families or even other inmates.

So can you.

A=A, bitch.

Res ipsa loquitur.

Again, this is an irrelevant line of reasoning. You're advocating according prison guards the right to murder any inmate they want, on no grounds beyond whether they feel threatened.

You can't argue that point rationally (you're advocating totalitarianism, you realize - or perhaps you don't), so now you're trying to say nobody who isn't a prison guard has the right to say how prison guards should behave.

That's also totalitarianism, by the way.

Ooh. Good one. I nearly felt that.

+1

You can't force corrections officers to not kill inmates who threaten them, it's slavery.

Best post evar.

yup

You are confusing me saying that this is going to happen with me saying this is what ought to happen.

I am saying that if you put the corrections officers in that position that is what will happen and further that while this is not an outcome I would want, it is not their fault, it is yours and that of other death penalty opponents who put them in an impossible position.

What I think ought to happen is that additional serious penalty for a person serving life be possible as a deterrent to his bad behavior in prison. It need not be death, but must be significant and able to be ratcheted up such that each time he does it, the penalty gets worse from his point of view.

This chickenshit of gangs in prison that rape and murder other inmates, and even have crimes committed outside the prisons to terrorize others, and traffic narcotics in prison needs to be stopped cold.

It would help a lot if the drug war was shut down to reduce the workload on prisons.

I think that the argument about the death penalty can wait till the murder and violent assault rates in prisons are below the rate of state imposed death penalties.

Not at all. I am saying that no one who puts people into a work situation where they can be murdered by someone they have to work around are going to do what they feel necessary to defend their lives. Not that they ought to be put in that situation.


Again grasp the difference between ought, and is.

You know, the worker will do what he must to survive and protect his family?

It is just human nature, nor am I advocating it, I am pointing out this is a likely consequence of your proposal that death penalties be totally eliminated with little or no other change in the USA judicial system. And given that, i would as a juror have a hard time convicting a corrections officer (or other inmate) if you (or people like you who advocate an end to the death penalty) put him in such a situation.

--snip

What judicial penalty is a deterrent to a person in prison serving life already?

No it is not, but it is predicable.

Corrections officers do not have a huge investment in education to do that sort of work, and so could quit and work at another job with no big deal.

Ordinarily I don't take issue with backpedalling, because honest overextensions sometimes occur in debate, and when someone realizes they've made a mistake, even if it's just in communicating their point, and attempts to correct it, I try to be supportive.

That's not what you're doing, montestruc. You're actually just backpedalling. It's dishonest and contemptible.

You weren't making idle observations on an uncontroversial topic like the necessity of reforming the penal system. You were outright claiming that minions of the executive branch were justified in performing summary extrajudicial executions, in circumstances for which they alone were responsible for determining, and you're just lying when you say otherwise.

Anyway. I'm going to bed. If you're still making noises tomorrow I'll be back to call you on it some more.

Nope, you misread me.

I was in no way advocating that the law should be such as you indicated, I was as I said stating this was what would be the result of your position.

Ok, but as I previously posted that is a form of torture and for the record not that I think it is the end of all arguments, but it has been so ruled by SCOTUS.

http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2007/01/the_case_again_.html