Bounce12 407 Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 (edited) Bill Richardson, corrupt pay-to-play politician that he is, just signed legislation that makes New Mexico the 15th state that bans the death penalty. LEOs can be killed, kids can be raped and killed, no problem. You can do that shit knowing that the worst punishment you'll get is free room and board and cable TV for life. The citizens of the state of NM are willing to pay $40K a year or so for your sustenance. There is NO CRIME that you can commit that will result in getting the death penalty. WHY did Richardson sign this POS legislation??? HellifIknow. I have no clue what makes liberals tick. Edited March 19, 2009 by Bounce12 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Koliadko 207 Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 It's his way of thanking them for voting for him. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sudaevpps43 31 Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 (edited) Bill Richardson, corrupt pay-to-play politician that he is, just signed legislation that makes New Mexico the 15th state that bans the death penalty. LEOs can be killed, kids can be raped and killed, no problem. You can do that shit knowing that the worst punishment you'll get is free room and board and cable TV for life. The citizens of the state of NM are willing to pay $40K a year or so for your sustenance. There is NO CRIME that you can commit that will result in getting the death penalty. WHY did Richardson sign this POS legislation??? HellifIknow. I have no clue what makes liberals tick. If I recall correctly New Mexico only executed two murderers since the death penalty was reinstated in 1977, so in effect the government of New Mexico had long ago already decided not to use the death penalty. This was just the final inevitable step to make that decades old decision official. Edited March 19, 2009 by Frogfoot Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rangerdavid 6 Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 If I recall correctly New Mexico only executed two murderers since the death penalty was reinstated in 1977, so New Mexico's death penalty was effectively killed off decades ago. This was just the inevitable final step. Yep, pretty much didn't matter either way..... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bounce12 407 Posted March 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 (edited) Yeah, but the OPTION was still there for the most heinous of crimes. There is a guy in NM that murdered a cop a year or two ago. I don't think he's been sentenced yet. So, I'll bet he's off the hook. There are crimes that deserve the death penalty. Killing a cop is one, but that cocksucker that raped and then buried that little girl alive in Florida deserves to die as well. We should own someone that does things like these. Society deserves the ultimate payback for that shit. Edited March 19, 2009 by Bounce12 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
saigafan12345 21 Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 my second cousin was an NJ state trooper, murdered during a routine traffic stop by a maniac who shot him 14 times. the guy belonged to a domestic terrorist organization prior to murdering an LEO. He's still in prison, warm and comfy. In fact, he even submitted artwork to a gallery in Maine that he made in prison. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
headshot 52 Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 (edited) No offense, but I think your thread title is the same kind of word game that the Brady Campaign uses. If any criminals gave a shit about any consequences, they wouldn't commit crimes. They are sociopaths. Given the joke that the death penalty has become in the last 20 years, I don't really care. All the BS appeals, and other legal crap that criminals can do didn't really make me see it as a deterrent anyway. They stand a better chance of dying quicker if they stay in the general population anyway. At least the criminal pieces of shit who mess with kids get beaten and raped for their entire stay. I never approved of the death penalty much anyway. I always thought that it would be better if the victims or their families were the ones who should flip the switch, not the state. Edited March 19, 2009 by headshot Quote Link to post Share on other sites
G O B 3,516 Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 Public hanging is the only true deterrent. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bounce12 407 Posted March 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 Public hanging is the only true deterrent. Not according to head-shot. He says they don't give a shit one way or the other. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bounce12 407 Posted March 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 No offense, but I think your thread title is the same kind of word game that the Brady Campaign uses. If any criminals gave a shit about any consequences, they wouldn't commit crimes. They are sociopaths. Given the joke that the death penalty has become in the last 20 years, I don't really care. All the BS appeals, and other legal crap that criminals can do didn't really make me see it as a deterrent anyway. They stand a better chance of dying quicker if they stay in the general population anyway. At least the criminal pieces of shit who mess with kids get beaten and raped for their entire stay. I never approved of the death penalty much anyway. I always thought that it would be better if the victims or their families were the ones who should flip the switch, not the state. Then fuck the "deterrence" factor. I think it exists, but let's say you're right and it doesn't... It can just stand as "punishment" and "justice." If someone really doesn't care what happens to them for certain crimes, then it can be simple "PAYBACK" for the families of the victims. That works too. Either way, we need the death penalty. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
termite 463 Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 I better just keep my mouth shut on this one, else I get in trouble. But an eye for an eye don't seem too bad, this day and time. Too many people are turning a blind eye to this shit. Kill a cop, cocksucker you gonna die, kill ANYONE, unjustified, and YOU GONNA DIE. My big mouth is opening, so I'm outta here. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bounce12 407 Posted March 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 I better just keep my mouth shut on this one, else I get in trouble. But an eye for an eye don't seem too bad, this day and time. Too many people are turning a blind eye to this shit. Kill a cop, cocksucker you gonna die, kill ANYONE, unjustified, and YOU GONNA DIE. My big mouth is opening, so I'm outta here. You're not in trouble with ME. LOL Hell, I fully concur with you. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
headshot 52 Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 No offense, but I think your thread title is the same kind of word game that the Brady Campaign uses. If any criminals gave a shit about any consequences, they wouldn't commit crimes. They are sociopaths. Given the joke that the death penalty has become in the last 20 years, I don't really care. All the BS appeals, and other legal crap that criminals can do didn't really make me see it as a deterrent anyway. They stand a better chance of dying quicker if they stay in the general population anyway. At least the criminal pieces of shit who mess with kids get beaten and raped for their entire stay. I never approved of the death penalty much anyway. I always thought that it would be better if the victims or their families were the ones who should flip the switch, not the state. Then fuck the "deterrence" factor. I think it exists, but let's say you're right and it doesn't... It can just stand as "punishment" and "justice." If someone really doesn't care what happens to them for certain crimes, then it can be simple "PAYBACK" for the families of the victims. That works too. Either way, we need the death penalty. Payback is a right of the victims, IMO. Not the state. I would love it if the victims could personally deliver death to whatever scumbag wronged without fear of prosecution by the state. Why can the gov kill for punishment, but we can't? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bounce12 407 Posted March 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 No offense, but I think your thread title is the same kind of word game that the Brady Campaign uses. If any criminals gave a shit about any consequences, they wouldn't commit crimes. They are sociopaths. Given the joke that the death penalty has become in the last 20 years, I don't really care. All the BS appeals, and other legal crap that criminals can do didn't really make me see it as a deterrent anyway. They stand a better chance of dying quicker if they stay in the general population anyway. At least the criminal pieces of shit who mess with kids get beaten and raped for their entire stay. I never approved of the death penalty much anyway. I always thought that it would be better if the victims or their families were the ones who should flip the switch, not the state. Then fuck the "deterrence" factor. I think it exists, but let's say you're right and it doesn't... It can just stand as "punishment" and "justice." If someone really doesn't care what happens to them for certain crimes, then it can be simple "PAYBACK" for the families of the victims. That works too. Either way, we need the death penalty. Payback is a right of the victims, IMO. Not the state. I would love it if the victims could personally deliver death to whatever scumbag wronged without fear of prosecution by the state. Why can the gov kill for punishment, but we can't? We're a nation of laws, not a nation of vigilantes. The state should be able to legally take a life for certain crimes. The really strange thing is, government is in the midst of a HUGE POWER GRAB. Yet, capital punishment is one power Richardson obviously doesn't want. I find that incomprehensible. They want power over every other aspect of our lives. Why not keep the power of the ultimate payback? I really don't get it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jrance@iacwds.com 716 Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 The death penalty results in a couple of things - 1. It is retribution that has been earned and is deserved 2. It cleanses the land of an evil 3. When justice is swift and sure it is definately a deterrent The issue is not whether we should have the death penalty. The issue is how do we, as a various states, make it swift and sure while ensuring that it is just. Just a few thoughts. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
headshot 52 Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 No offense, but I think your thread title is the same kind of word game that the Brady Campaign uses. If any criminals gave a shit about any consequences, they wouldn't commit crimes. They are sociopaths. Given the joke that the death penalty has become in the last 20 years, I don't really care. All the BS appeals, and other legal crap that criminals can do didn't really make me see it as a deterrent anyway. They stand a better chance of dying quicker if they stay in the general population anyway. At least the criminal pieces of shit who mess with kids get beaten and raped for their entire stay. I never approved of the death penalty much anyway. I always thought that it would be better if the victims or their families were the ones who should flip the switch, not the state. Then fuck the "deterrence" factor. I think it exists, but let's say you're right and it doesn't... It can just stand as "punishment" and "justice." If someone really doesn't care what happens to them for certain crimes, then it can be simple "PAYBACK" for the families of the victims. That works too. Either way, we need the death penalty. Payback is a right of the victims, IMO. Not the state. I would love it if the victims could personally deliver death to whatever scumbag wronged without fear of prosecution by the state. Why can the gov kill for punishment, but we can't? We're a nation of laws, not a nation of vigilantes. The state should be able to legally take a life for certain crimes. The really strange thing is, government is in the midst of a HUGE POWER GRAB. Yet, capital punishment is one power Richardson obviously doesn't want. I find that incomprehensible. They want power over every other aspect of our lives. Why not keep the power of the ultimate payback? I really don't get it. Why would I be a vigilante if the state allowed me to kill the guy who they convicted of a crime committed against me? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bounce12 407 Posted March 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 No offense, but I think your thread title is the same kind of word game that the Brady Campaign uses. If any criminals gave a shit about any consequences, they wouldn't commit crimes. They are sociopaths. Given the joke that the death penalty has become in the last 20 years, I don't really care. All the BS appeals, and other legal crap that criminals can do didn't really make me see it as a deterrent anyway. They stand a better chance of dying quicker if they stay in the general population anyway. At least the criminal pieces of shit who mess with kids get beaten and raped for their entire stay. I never approved of the death penalty much anyway. I always thought that it would be better if the victims or their families were the ones who should flip the switch, not the state. Then fuck the "deterrence" factor. I think it exists, but let's say you're right and it doesn't... It can just stand as "punishment" and "justice." If someone really doesn't care what happens to them for certain crimes, then it can be simple "PAYBACK" for the families of the victims. That works too. Either way, we need the death penalty. Payback is a right of the victims, IMO. Not the state. I would love it if the victims could personally deliver death to whatever scumbag wronged without fear of prosecution by the state. Why can the gov kill for punishment, but we can't? We're a nation of laws, not a nation of vigilantes. The state should be able to legally take a life for certain crimes. The really strange thing is, government is in the midst of a HUGE POWER GRAB. Yet, capital punishment is one power Richardson obviously doesn't want. I find that incomprehensible. They want power over every other aspect of our lives. Why not keep the power of the ultimate payback? I really don't get it. Why would I be a vigilante if the state allowed me to kill the guy who they convicted of a crime committed against me? Maybe I didn't read closely enough. I didn't understand that you meant the next of kin pulling the trigger after a real trial in a court of competent jurisdiction. I don't have a problem with WHO does it. Hell, if they want to, I really have no problem with that as long as the perp is convicted after a fair trial, there is no doubt that they're guilty and they have exhausted all legal appeals. If the next of kin want to pull the lever, push the button or drop the pill that actually does the deed, hell, I have no problem with that. I'd be all for public hangings and public firing squads. Let the public see it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Koliadko 207 Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 I think the death penalty is a good deterrent. I mean really, how many that have been put to death have committed another crime? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SOPMOD 254 Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 (edited) Bill Richardson, corrupt pay-to-play politician that he is, just signed legislation that makes New Mexico the 15th state that bans the death penalty. LEOs can be killed, kids can be raped and killed, no problem. You can do that shit knowing that the worst punishment you'll get is free room and board and cable TV for life. The citizens of the state of NM are willing to pay $40K a year or so for your sustenance. There is NO CRIME that you can commit that will result in getting the death penalty. WHY did Richardson sign this POS legislation??? HellifIknow. I have no clue what makes liberals tick. The death penalty is great in theory but bad in application.If even 1 innocent person is put to death then it makes everyone involved a murderer who will face them at the white throne judgement. Illinois executed 20+ negroes who were later cleared by DNA evidence and those 20 negroes being alive would be worth merely taking a killer off the street and locking him up forever rather than executing him. Richardson is a skank but even a skank is right occasionally and in the bible it says it takes two eye witnesses to put a man to death and most murder convictions in this day and age don't have two eye witnesses. I will err on the side of not putting innocent men to death since Sheol awaits those who judge falsely. Edited March 20, 2009 by SOPMOD Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bounce12 407 Posted March 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 I think the death penalty is a good deterrent. I mean really, how many that have been put to death have committed another crime? Now THAT is an excellent point! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Azrial 1,091 Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 Public hanging is the only true deterrent. Not according to head-shot. He says they don't give a shit one way or the other. He has no idea what the hell he is talking about. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Azrial 1,091 Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 I think the death penalty is a good deterrent. I mean really, how many that have been put to death have committed another crime? Plus 1! Now here is a women that understands! No recidivism amoung any that have ever rode the lighting in Old Sparky! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.