Texas carries out its 500th execution since 1982

[Alexander J Luthor]

Bienaimee R

What I said is that a person committing jusfiable homicide is not a murderer. No blame should be assigned to any person utilizing force to protect himself, other people, or property.

An execution is not justifiable homicide. It is a grotesque ritual of punishment requiring one or more human beings to restrain and kill another human being who may be guilty of truly heinous crimes but is no danger to society at the time s/he is killed.

You need to stop assigning intent to my comments. I said nothing at all about arming death row convicts and permitting them to fight for their lives.

If you want to support expensive ritualized murder, that's your right as a citizen. It's my right to call it what it is.

That's the thing, though. You can blame other anti-death penalty members for the death penalty being so expensive. They're so against the criminal feeling pain at ANY point, despite what they've done, that it takes an expensive process like injection to get the job done. If a bullet is good enough for an injured horse, it's good enough for the woman who just drowned her three children in the bathtub. And I ask you, if lethal injection is just like the process used to put pets to sleep, why is there about an 80% cost difference between the two? If euthanasia cost the same as lethal injection, people would just take their pets to the back 40 and get the job done quick and cheap, then bury it where they could visit often.

I'm not assigning intent. I'm interpreting alternatives. We can't let the criminals run free range when we try to kill them, what if they grab the weapon? Death fights are the only way to kill a criminal without restraining them, which is apparently what you want.

[Atrocitiesss]

MiameMiame

Contagious Medusa

MiameMiame

Contagious Medusa

MiameMiame

'An eye for an eye' a saying that was first used by "God" in the old testament. An out-dated saying, fitting for an out-dated 'justice' system. Yes, that's America.

Actually its called 'fairness' Why should you get to live, when the person you killed, doesn't?

I wouldn't call that outdated, i'd call that real Justice.

Like I said; it's hypocritical. Killing someone else is not okay, but if the court says you can kill it's suddenly called 'justice'. Besides that, death-penalty costs on avarage a lot more than a life-long sentence in prison.

You're missing the point lol. Say your mother was murdered, would you want her killer to live while she has her life taken? Not likely. You'd want the killer dead too.

Sorry, I think death-penalty is barbaric and out-dated. Even if it was my mother; I'd be satisfied with a life-long prison sentence.

As long as you're aware that your tax money goes to giving the killer free health care, dental, food, housing, ect. For however many years that person may live.

So what if the death penalty is expensive? Its a one time cost for that person. You're not paying to keep them alive after that.

But I suppose if you're fine keeping a murderer alive, thats your problem. lol

[Atrocitiesss]

Alexander J Luthor

Bienaimee R

What I said is that a person committing jusfiable homicide is not a murderer. No blame should be assigned to any person utilizing force to protect himself, other people, or property.

An execution is not justifiable homicide. It is a grotesque ritual of punishment requiring one or more human beings to restrain and kill another human being who may be guilty of truly heinous crimes but is no danger to society at the time s/he is killed.

You need to stop assigning intent to my comments. I said nothing at all about arming death row convicts and permitting them to fight for their lives.

If you want to support expensive ritualized murder, that's your right as a citizen. It's my right to call it what it is.

That's the thing, though. You can blame other anti-death penalty members for the death penalty being so expensive. They're so against the criminal feeling pain at ANY point, despite what they've done, that it takes an expensive process like injection to get the job done. If a bullet is good enough for an injured horse, it's good enough for the woman who just drowned her three children in the bathtub. And I ask you, if lethal injection is just like the process used to put pets to sleep, why is there about an 80% cost difference between the two? If euthanasia cost the same as lethal injection, people would just take their pets to the back 40 and get the job done quick and cheap, then bury it where they could visit often.

I'm not assigning intent. I'm interpreting alternatives. We can't let the criminals run free range when we try to kill them, what if they grab the weapon? Death fights are the only way to kill a criminal without restraining them, which is apparently what you want.

They don't even have to use a sterile needle either to be honest. e.e That'd save money right there