Originally Posted by xSubmission
Real research! Are you retarded? An "eye-for-an-eye" mentality wont bring closure to anything. Simply killing offenders is the easy way out. Execution is by no means "respect for human life." Obviously more killing results in nothing positive. An "eye-for-an-eye." mentality gets society no where
I think the quote you're lookingfor is "An eye-for-an-eye leaves the whole world blind." Geez, can't even get your own propaganda slogans right.
Have you done any real research? I don't mean you read a textbook that says "According to research..." or listened to a teacher who said "Resarchers have found...", I mean have you actaully
gone out yourself & looked into this? As for the rest of your post, it's pointless. I already made it clear that the current system isn't life-for-a-life, or even life-for-two-lives. Even in capital murder cases, a guilty verdict does not mean a death sentence. Here, I did a litte research on your behalf:
Originally Posted by http://www.uscourts.gov/outreach/topics/deathpenalty_intro.html
In a bifurcated trial, the jury would first determine guilt or innocence, and then, if the defendant were found guilty, the appropriate sentence, a life term or death. The Court in Greg also sanctioned the use of a list of aggravating and mitigating factors that would provide standards to help the jury determine whether or not the defendant should receive the death penalty. This removed the jury's unlimited discretion in capital cases.
So, in my previous post I explained why the death penalty arose out of a respect for life your response was "nuh-uh". I explained that it wasn't a 1 to 1 (i.e. not "eye-for-an-eye") ratio of murders to executions your response was "eye-for-an-eye is dumb". I asked you to do research. You laughed me off. No where in any of your posts do you actually raise any legitimate arguments. You're just puke out the same old schtick you've heard someone else spout before you.
Now, the thing that pisses me off the most about your post is your use of the word "retarded". Just like your use of the word "rape", you're ignoring the fact that there are literally millions of people in this world with mental disabilities. You choose to take a word that is a serious condition for many people & use it as an insult. You are either: a) saying that I must be mentally handicapped if I don't agree with you; or b) saying that being mentally handicapped is as trivial (in the grand scheme of things) as this argument we're having. That makes you either: a) arrogant & close minded; or b) an insensitive idiot.
Again, go do some real research (since I've already started it for you) & get back to me, boy.