OT: "Procedure" tomorrow

• krw I mean.

NT

How many intellectuals put their lives on the line, to win that war? They sit in offices and decide what are acceptable levels of casualties among the actual fighters.

In that case, you have my pity.

Not all of them

He was one of the British radar experts (amongst his numerous achievements) and he died in 1942 when the Halifax bomber that was carrying him and an H2S radar system which he and his crew were live-testing crashed on landing.

When I was working at EMI Central Research I met one of the guys - Bill Percival - who had worked with him then and before WW2. I didn't make a fuss about it but the historical significance did register.

A few years earlier, at Plessey Pacific in Australia, W.A.S. Butement was my boss. He'd done interesting stuff when he was younger, but wasn't all that impressive in 1970.

Or to even start the war.

Ho hummm..

Like, what specific law says that anybody has to demand the death of someone else? Dah....

All I see is a the usual baying pack of wolves displaying the usual stunning display of hypocrisy, totally oblivious to the notion that they want to do to the accused, what the accused has, allegedly done. If it were so wrong, then, it can't be right to do it again.

Its outrageous that Gov. Rick Scott expressed outrage, that he may not get the chance to do what Markeith Loyd is alleged to have done, i.e. kill someone.

More so when:

"The mother of homicide victim Sade Dixon spoke out Friday in support of State Attorney Aramis Ayala's decision to not seek the death penalty for her daughter's accused killer or anyone else."

Surely, it would be more ethical to respect the wishes of the victim's mother here, instead of respecting election votes.

Of course, assuming the allegations are true, then the crimes are horrendous, and would certainly warrant life in prison, with no possibility of parole, however, the idea that members of the state that desire a more cold bloodied, vastly more premeditated murder is anyway more ethical, is extremely dubious. Noting that a fleeing felon, in fear of his own life, is understandably, going to act on his millions of years of evolutionary programming of protecting himself at all costs.

...and don't even attempt to confuse "understanding" with "condoning".

-- Kevin Aylward

ROTFLMAO

I guess you and the rest of the world has a different definition of bigot and leftist.

Maybe one one day you will be able to present an argument other than an ad-hominem attack, but I doubt it.

-- Kevin Aylward

You don't know our Kev. He's not wasting his time one bit.

I haven't kept up with this thread and I don't know exactly what krw has said, but I personally do maintain there is a perfectly solid case for the death penalty when:

a) The crime is especially reprehensible b) The identity of the perpetrator is beyond all question (not merely "beyond reasonable doubt") c) The mental capacity of the perpetrator was not impaired at the time

If that's what you call "stupid bs" then there's really nothing more I can be bothered to say on the subject.

A most costly decision. Do you have any idea how much it costs to incarcerate a prisoner in that category for that length of time? We have an overcrowding crisis right now because the system is clogged up by 'bed- blockers' who could easily be removed at zero further cost to the taxpayer.

Kevin believes that all killing is murder. Since he is unwilling to use a common language in his argument, there is no point continuing. You can't argue with a liar. You should know that by your dealings with Slowman.

You said it, Kevin. Deal with it.

No, you just can't even read what you wrote. You *are* a bigot.

Stating a *fact*. You _are_ a bigot.

Bingo!

The willfully stupid deserve no pity.

Krw neither gets it nor deserves it.

It's her job tpoo follow the laws, not decide which ones she likes. In that case, he murdered a police officer in front of a lot of people, and he has a long history of violence, If she can't or won't do her job, she needs to be fired.

Indeed. Give him life, and he'll file appeal after appeal, until he's dead. It can run into millions of dollars.

It's a pity that they can't be helped.

I think anyone reading my posts will know that at no time have I said that. I have specifically pointed out to the contrary.

I have noted that one, arguable, definition of murder, is killing not in direct defence of a life.

No idea what this rambling line means.

I have drawn attention to the fact that cold bloodied, deliberate calculating killing of another, not in direct defence of a life is indeed the same description that can be applied to Jury's deciding whether to give a death penalty, the judge imposing such a death penalty, and the individuals carrying out the sentence.

I don't see that the notion that the person being killed, has killed someone else, makes any relevant difference.

I also understand the historical implications of allowing states to murder their citizens.

An issue with you, is that you don't seem able to view the ethical issues involved other than in the most simplistic of manners.

You seem quite oblivious to ideas such as "one mans terrorist, is another mans freedom fighter".

You point of view appears to be that what has been "legally" declared by the person with the biggest stick, is ethically, the correct one. Clearly, the fact that many western societies have removed the death penalty, indicates that there are others with different sticks.

I understand the sort of reasons that you have to support the death penalty, I don't agree with them. On your side, you show no evidence, that you have any understanding that what the legal system does in death penalty cases, is physically and mentally almost identical.

You have presented no support whatsoever on what distinguishes the two sceneries. You just continue with Ad hominem attacks.

I would refer to your above quote where you stated a verifiable untruth on the matter of what I said.

It is difficult to know whether you are a liar, drunk, illiterate, or just having some minor difficulties in English comprehension because your dog just died.

I would guess that if you were able to produce a rational argument, as to why the Jury/Judge debating killing someone is superior, ethically, you would have done so, rather than resorting to the unfounded personally criticisms.

-- Kevin Aylward

Yes.

The however, is that it costs 3 times as much to run the gauntlet of appeals is a death penalty case, according to the sources I posted in my other posts, somewhere...

A quick search pops up:

--California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, July 1, 2008 "Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present system ($137 million per year), the present system after implementation of the reforms ... ($232.7 million per year) ... and a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty ($11.5 million)."

So, like 10:1 from that reference.

Its a no brainer. Other then the satisfaction of revenge, the death penalty achieves nothing positive, that is if you can count revenge as a positive.

-- Kevin Aylward