News Death Penalty for cut and dried cases?

[apeiron]

Perhaps then you shouldn't get involved in threads where ppl discuss exactly the situations you choose to ignore, and move to a thread where maiming resulting from extreme sports is discussed ?

Perhaps you should just respond to the arguments as raised rather than coming over all evasive when the essential silliness of your position is exposed.

You raised the issue of personal dispensation of justice. Others have pointed out that this is not generally considered a good idea for obvious reasons.

I have offered the explicit counter-example to your murder/rape of justice for a shoplifter. Have you got a coherent reply?

 

[DaveC426913]

A quick question for someone not in the know:

What does the death penalty accomplish?

 

[apeiron]

You use the legal term for "domestic violence", but not the legal term for "child murder" or whatever it's called?

Just a strange non-sequitur (sp?) i noticed. You could have easily called the first "spouse-bashing". (Taking care to note that the ratio of domestic violence by a man as opposed to by a woman is a lot closer to 1:1 than many people think)

I can't follow the points you are attempting to make here.

However, clearly the point I was making is that when it comes to violent deaths, in most societies it is your "loved ones" rather than psychopathic strangers who are the greater risk.

In DanP's world, it is some mythic bereaved patriarch who is being called upon to hand out justice - preferably a bullet in the nape of the neck from the patriarch's luger.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, it is the patriarchs who are the police's first suspects when there is a murdered female or raped child.

 

[Char. Limit]

I can't follow the points you are attempting to make here.

However, clearly the point I was making is that when it comes to violent deaths, in most societies it is your "loved ones" rather than psychopathic strangers who are the greater risk.

In DanP's world, it is some mythic bereaved patriarch who is being called upon to hand out justice - preferably a bullet in the nape of the neck from the patriarch's luger.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, it is the patriarchs who are the police's first suspects when there is a murdered female or raped child.

Well, I wasn't making a point before, just asking a question, but I will now.

Domestic violence is not a one-way street. Women are responsible for about http://www.oregoncounseling.org/Handouts/DomesticViolenceMen.htm. So... quit talking about "patriarchy" and "murdered women".

 

[apeiron]

Well, I wasn't making a point before, just asking a question, but I will now.

Domestic violence is not a one-way street. Women are responsible for about http://www.oregoncounseling.org/Handouts/DomesticViolenceMen.htm. So... quit talking about "patriarchy" and "murdered women".

Dan and others chose the examples so take it up with them.

Though the fact that about a quarter of intimate relationship killings are women on men does demonstrate the need to deal in general principles of justice and to quit arguing on the basis of the most extreme examples (extreme from ppl's all too clearly gendered pov).

 

[DanP]

.

In DanP's world, it is some mythic bereaved patriarch who is being called upon to hand out justice - preferably a bullet in the nape of the neck from the patriarch's luger.

I think you go on one of your fantasist stories yet again. It should be time for you to understand that handing out justice is for the courts of law. Executing the court's sentence is not justice by any means of imagination, it;s just carrying out the court;s sentence. But probably in your dream world the two of them are the same. Ah, and it's an interesting choice of words you had for a firearm ... a luger :P Rofl

 

[Proton Soup]

Perhaps then you shouldn't get involved in threads where ppl discuss exactly the situations you choose to ignore, and move to a thread where maiming resulting from extreme sports is discussed ?

he is in exactly the right place because he is exactly right. you're obsessed with vengeance. some of us think that is an irrational basis for a legal system. and i personally think that is one of the main problems with the death penalty.

 

[nismaratwork]

he is in exactly the right place because he is exactly right. you're obsessed with vengeance. some of us think that is an irrational basis for a legal system. and i personally think that is one of the main problems with the death penalty.

Agreed... shot in the nape of the neck... that's just raw.

 

[Chi Meson]

A quick question for someone not in the know:

What does the death penalty accomplish?

Though not my own reasons, it seems to be various combinations of:

1: a sense of closure for the victims / justice being served (could be same or diff things)
2: revenge for the community
3: a savings of taxpayer's money by not housing the criminal for several decades

My personal feeling is that the worst criminals (Tim VcVeigh, the Cheshire Home invasion Duo) were/would not be punished enough by being put to death. WE should give them all the decades they need to learn true remorse, and only then let them out of their tiny cells so they can go into their regular cells for their remaining lives.

 

[DanP]

Agreed... shot in the nape of the neck... that's just raw.

Curiously how a clean execution of a criminal appears to you raw and yucky :P Perhaps is the blood which phases you ? Ok, use a lethal injection, is cleaner, and the end result is the same.

Would you cry for Steven Hayes should he get death sentence nismartwork ?

 

[nismaratwork]

Curiously how a clean execution of a criminal appears to you raw and yucky :P Perhaps is the blood which phases you ? Ok, use a lethal injection, is cleaner, and the end result is the same.

Would you cry for Steven Hayes should he get death sentence nismartwork ?

That you'd consider this down to particular kill shots is a little... off. Beyond that you're just mocking me and are not reflecting my beliefs. As has been mentioned before, you're more about vengeance than justice, and for all of your talk, you seem quite emotional about it.

 

[dudleysharp]

Why the death penalty?

Justice.

is the primary reason, just as it is for all criminal sanctions.

"Death Penalty Support: Religious and Secular Scholars"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-support-modern-catholic.html

In addition, it saves innocent lives.

Innocence & Deterrence in the Death Penalty Debate
Dudley Sharp, contact info below

Innocence

1) "The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx


The false innocence claims by anti death penalty activists are legendary. Some examples:


2) "The Innocent Executed: Deception & Death Penalty Opponents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/10/08/the-innocent-executed-deception--death-penalty-opponents--draft.aspx

3) The 130 (now 139) death row "innocents" scam
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/03/04/fact-checking-issues-on-innocence-and-the-death-penalty.aspx

4) "The Exonerated: Are Any Actually Innocent?"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/08/21/the-exonerated-are-any-actually-innocent---new-mexico.aspx

5) Sister Helen Prejean & the death penalty: A Critical Review"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/05/04/sister-helen-prejean--the-death-penalty-a-critical-review.aspx

6) "At the Death House Door" Can Rev. Carroll Pickett be trusted?"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/01/30/fact-checking-is-very-welcome.aspx


7) "Cameron Todd Willingham: Another Media Meltdown", A Collection of Articles
http://homicidesurvivors.com/categories/Cameron%20Todd%20Willingham.aspx

8) "A Death Penalty Red Herring: The Inanity and Hypocrisy of Perfection", Lester Jackson Ph.D.,
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=102909A


Deterrence

All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism. The death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the least likely of all criminal sanctions to violate that truism.

1) 25 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation,
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm

2) "Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/02/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx

4) "Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html


5) This is out of date, but corrects an number of the misconceptions about deterrence.

"Death Penalty and Deterrence"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/03/20/the-death-penalty-as-a-deterrent--confirmed--seven-recent-studies-updated-61204.aspx

6) "The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

 

[DaveC426913]

Though not my own reasons, it seems to be various combinations of:

1: a sense of closure for the victims / justice being served (could be same or diff things)
2: revenge for the community
3: a savings of taxpayer's money by not housing the criminal for several decades

This is what I was thinking. Can any of those be considered examples of the highest morals to which our society should be aspiring?

Should we not, as a society, be taking responsibility for producing even the sickest of individuals? To execute them is to imply that they are not a product of us as humans, is it not?

 

[alt]

The singular and insurmountable problem witht the death penalty, IMO, is that there is rarely if ever, 'no question'. The last man to be hanged in Australia was one Ronald Ryan, in 1967 before the death penalty was repealed ..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Ryan

or rather, repealed as a consequence of this hanging. For it was recently revealed that he was innocent ..

Nineteen years after Ryan's execution, former Warder Doug Pascoe, confessed on-air to Channel 9 and the media, that he fired a shot during Ryan's escape bid. Pascoe believes his shot may have accidentally killed his fellow prison guard, Hodson. Pascoe had not told anyone that he fired a shot during the escape because at that time, "I was a 23-year-old coward". In 1986, he tried to sell his story but his claim was dismissed by police, because his rifle had a full magazine after the shooting and he was too far away.[56][57]

What about this guy - 'The Wronged Man'

http://www.abc.net.au/austory/specials/wrongedman/default.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/austory/specials/wrongedmantwo/default.htm

Spent 12 years in jail for bludgeoning a woman to death. Recently released as innocent. Had the death penalty not been repealed, he'd be dead.

It's usually as 'no question' as the prosecution can make it.

 

[alt]

This is what I was thinking. Can any of those be considered examples of the highest morals to which our society should be aspiring?

Should we not, as a society, be taking responsibility for producing even the sickest of individuals? To execute them is to imply that they are not a product of us as humans, is it not?

That's the uncomfortable issue, isn't it ? I am reminded of one philosopher (forgot who, but it doesn't matter) ..

"A leaf does not grow bad without the silent knowledge of the whole tree"

 

[DaveC426913]

That's the uncomfortable issue, isn't it ? I am reminded of one philosopher (forgot who, but it doesn't matter) ..

"A leaf does not grow bad without the silent knowledge of the whole tree"

Thank you. I will steal that quote.

 

[skeptic2]

Though not my own reasons, it seems to be various combinations of:

1: a sense of closure for the victims / justice being served (could be same or diff things)
2: revenge for the community
3: a savings of taxpayer's money by not housing the criminal for several decades

My personal feeling is that the worst criminals (Tim VcVeigh, the Cheshire Home invasion Duo) were/would not be punished enough by being put to death. WE should give them all the decades they need to learn true remorse, and only then let them out of their tiny cells so they can go into their regular cells for their remaining lives.

Did you leave out deterrence intentionally?

 

[pongo38]

I don't think it should ever be the function of the state to kill its own citizens. That principle comes above all others.

 

[JaredJames]

I don't think it should ever be the function of the state to kill its own citizens. That principle comes above all others.

I also don't think it should be the function of a state to house people who break the law in such good conditions (this is more regarding British prisons and the fact they spend far too much providing prisoners with the 'basics' - Playstation, Xbox, Wii, TV, Gyms etc - all things which anyone in the 'real' world would have to pay for, and they're not exactly cheap either.) It's no wonder people don't mind going to prison.

I'm not saying American prisons have equivalent conditions (do they?), but still, the cost of keeping someone for a life sentence (I mean life, as in whole life, not the British 15 years life sentence) is excessive and shouldn't have to be paid for by the tax payers.

If someone commits a crime which means they're going to die in prison, what is the point in keeping them alive there? You're then spending large amounts of money just to wait for them to die naturally. Again, quality of life is a factor, and it is my dislike of the 'good' prison conditions in the UK that makes me see this practice of life imprisonment as pointless as the whole "your life is crap now your in prison" factor is lost when you give them all of the commodities they'd have on the outside (items such as those above).

If you take the number of people to be put to death and then compare that to the number later found innocent, what does it look like (anyone have the numbers)? Does it justify the cost of keeping everyone alive?
I know this sounds harsh but given the law works on evidence and innocent until proven guilty, if all the evidence says you committed the crime and you have no way to prove your innocence (these days, to have nothing to say you didn't do it isn't exactly an easy situation to get yourself into), then you can't expect people to just accept your innocence and you are going to be convicted. (I'm not saying I advocate this and I definitely wouldn't want to be in this situation.)

The case above regarding the guy convicting of killing and it turned out to be someone who fired a shot accidentally, that is very sad, but you can't blame the law. You can't say that they made a mistake, because based on the evidence they had a decision was made and given said evidence it was the correct decision. If the actual guilty person had come forward then and there, it would have been different and to ignore that evidence would have been a mistake (especially as it appears the guy had attempted to cover up what had happened).

With hindsight, many issues could be avoided (in all aspects of life) but the fact is it doesn't exist and to say that a judgement was wrong because of 'new evidence' that comes forward just doesn't work (unless there is a specific reason it wasn't used in the trial, but was available at the time). Using DNA to clear people from past crimes is fair enough, but again, the fact is DNA wasn't available then and the evidence they had showed that person as guilty. You can't then turn around and say the law made a mistake. The law followed its procedures, used the evidence, and gave a judgement.

Rant over, it is this simple principle, which as long as the law acts fairly and judges based on evidence with the whole innocent until proven guilty system, which allows me to accept the death penalty as a way punishment and reducing prison costs / overcrowding (although I agree it wouldn't do too much for overcrowding, every little helps).

The only alternative I'd say to the death penalty, would be lock these scumbags in solitary for their entire sentence. OK, the cost of keeping them is still there (when I say solitary I mean them, a bed and a toilet), but at least they are being punished properly (you want to attack / rape someone, you don't deserve to be a part of a society, prison or otherwise). But then this comes down to being pretty much torture, which brings me back to the whole "should be a quick death" issue. Hence my agreement with the death sentence.

 

[DanP]

That you'd consider this down to particular kill shots is a little... off. Beyond that you're just mocking me and are not reflecting my beliefs. As has been mentioned before, you're more about vengeance than justice and for all of your talk, you seem quite emotional about it.

Interesting words from somebody who publicly recognized that he would like to kill the would be assassin of his daughter.

 

[JaredJames]

Interesting words from somebody who publicly recognized that he would like to kill the would be assassin of his daughter.

I don't think there's anyone who can truly say they wouldn't want revenge on a person who killed their spouse / children / family in general.

The difference is, the system in place is designed to separate peoples heightened emotional state (in this case that makes them want to seek revenge) and applies a rational decision making processes which dishes out a suitable (at least in the eyes of the law) punishment.

If you want to take into consideration the feelings of the victims family when it comes to enacting a punishment, surely you should also consider the family of the accused? They may feel equally strongly that they don't want them to die / receive said punishment.
It may sound stupid, but both groups would be in a heightened state of emotion and so their judgements will be skewed and not rationally based.

Which is the whole point of separating them.

I do understand what you're saying (I think), once the decision to execute is given, you want the victim / victims family to be able to carry out the sentence. The problem I see with this (aside from the above) is simple:
The state executioner is very much faceless. They just carry out the sentence and it's done. The moment you let the victims family perform the execution, you face the possibility of the accused persons family lashing out and going for revenge on that person. Creating a cycle of revenge which we don't want in a civilised society.

Not to mention the potential psychological after effects the family member who conducts the execution could be faced with. How often do you do something in the heat of the moment and then regret it afterwards (sometimes straight away).
Always leave an email written in anger for a few hours and wait to see if you still want to send it - same principle, just a more emotionally charged scenario. Nonetheless a possibly devastating outcome for the 'sender'.

 

[DaveC426913]

The singular and insurmountable problem witht the death penalty, IMO, is that there is rarely if ever, 'no question'.

I disagree. I don't think the issue is about guilt at all. I think it's about why a society would enact a death penalty at all.

I also don't think it should be the function of a state to house people who break the law ...

While I recognize that you strongly qualified your case, I'm going to cherry pick this piece as representative of what I think many people feel.

If we as a society are responsible for these people who are violent, then we have no business turning our backs on them and condemning them to "the ultimate exile".

I think the question we need to be asking is: do we as a society take responsibility for the mental state of all our citizens?

Unless they grew up in a vacuum, how can we not be in some part responsible for the outcome? Did they develop their world view while on the Moon?

 

[JaredJames]

If we as a society are responsible for these people who are violent, then we have no business turning our backs on them and condemning them to "the ultimate exile".

I think the question we need to be asking is: do we as a society take responsibility for the mental state of all our citizens?

Unless they grew up in a vacuum, how can we not be in some part responsible for the outcome? Did they develop their world view while on the Moon?

I agree that society plays a part on peoples mental states, but I disagree that is to blame for their actions as a whole. What people do in life and the choices they make, are going to have a massive influence.

Growing up in violent households or violent areas are what I consider contributing factors, but that to me doesn't make the whole society responsible. People who commit these horrendous crimes choose to do so and don't deserve to be a part of society. I, as you can probably tell, don't accept the "insanity plea" as a defence.

Everyone I know just lives quiet lives and don't want violence. It is a minority who go looking for trouble. Of all the thousands of football fans that watch matches, it is only a small group that go looking to start fights and the police target them as necessary. When it comes to recognising trouble makers I think the general population does so well. We see who are the trouble makers are and try to deal with it.

I don't think it's fair however, to blame society as a whole for a minority of people who commits such hideous crimes. Especially when you consider how normal some people who commit murder may appear before the event (as pointed out before regarding murders being mainly by close family / friends).

 

[BobG]

Perfection - a beautiful fairy tale that always leaves you hating yourself.

A good general rule, but you have to seriously question just how much error is tolerable when it comes to the death penalty.

It's definitely true that DNA evidence has discovered past errors, but DNA evidence is only available for a small percentage of cases from the past. DNA evidence isn't always available even for current cases (even though I think DNA testing and other modern techniques make errors less likely).

I think the testimony of eyewitnesses is particularly suspect. I think it takes a lot of eyewitnesses to reduce the error rate down to an acceptable level.

And I think the term 'acceptable level' is hard to define, as well:

"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," says English jurist William Blackstone. (This is the ratio most often quoted.)

"It's better for four guilty men to go free than one innocent man to be imprisoned," says basketball coach George Raveling.

But "it's better to turn five guilty men loose than it is to convict one innocent man," according to ex-Mississippi executioner and roadside fruit stand operator Thomas Berry Bruce.

Justice Benjamin Cardozo certainly believed in five for execution, and allegedly favored ten for imprisonment. (error rate of 17% for execution and 9% for imprisonment, which is an interesting attitude)

Benjamin Franklin thought "that it is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer."

English chief justice John Fortescue suggested "Indeed I would rather wish twenty evil doers to escape death through pity, than one man to be unjustly condemned."

In Judge Henry J. Friendly's opinion, "Most Americans would allow a considerable number of guilty persons to go free than to convict any appreciable number of innocent men." (I'm not sure which is a larger number: considerable or appreciable)

In the Bible, God executes the entire population of Earth, except for Noah and his family. (But, in that case, all of the executions were justified and none of the executed were later found to be innocent.)

Instituting the death penalty automatically means a certain percentage of innocent people will be executed and anyone that's pro-death penalty should at least consider what error rate would be acceptable when deciding what type of evidence is acceptable in death penalty cases.

Personally, I don't think convictions based on eyewitness testimony should be eligible for the death penalty. I also don't believe the death penalty is appropriate for any run of the mill murder regardless of the evidence. There should be very few cases where the depravity of the murder was great enough to warrant the death penalty (cases such Dahmer, et al).

I don't have a specific number of acceptable false executions, but I guess my ratio would be greater than 1000 to 1.

 

[DaveC426913]

I agree that society plays a part on peoples mental states, but I disagree that is to blame for their actions as a whole. What people do in life and the choices they make, are going to have a massive influence.

Growing up in violent households or violent areas are what I consider contributing factors, but that to me doesn't make the whole society responsible. People who commit these horrendous crimes choose to do so and don't deserve to be a part of society. I, as you can probably tell, don't accept the "insanity plea" as a defence.

I am not suggesting society is "to blame" and I don't mean "wholly responsible".

These people did not grow up isolated on the Moon; they did grow up in our society. As a society, we may have to recognize that our world is not perfect, and that humans are often deeply flawed, but that society is a product of all humans, not just the well-behaved ones.

To execute one is to say "you are not human" when, in fact, they are.

 

[JaredJames]

To execute one is to say "you are not human" when, in fact, they are.

A human who has taken the life or ruined the life of another human. Should they be a part of society? No.

But then why should a society who they have committed such a crime against be forced to pay to keep them in what I consider 'stable' conditions? Ignoring quality, 3 meals a day, a bed, bathroom facilities, entertainment (again depending where you are it will differ), education, healthcare.

When there are homeless people who need most of these things but can't get help. When there are people who can't afford the £50,000 cancer treatment and have to live with the fact there is a cure, but they can't have it and so will suffer and die, and yet it's costing millions to maintain prisoners who don't deserve to be alive let alone paid to live by tax payers. I find this the ultimate irony.

Here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm081125/text/81125w0033.htm under Prisons: Per Capita Costs section it shows to keep a male prisoner locked up for ten years is around £390,000, now you consider the cost of keeping someone in prison until they die, these days (assuming the crime is committed mid 20's) you could be looking at 40 - 60+ years. That money could be far better spent on healthcare or education.

EDIT: That cost above doesn't include any healthcare or education costs for those prisoners, that's additional (again shown in that article).

 

[JaredJames]

BobG, I was using the DNA issue to simply outline that people saying courts make mistakes when sentencing people in the past isn't a fair accusation.

If DNA wasn't available for the case at the time (lack of technology), you can't expect the courts to use it. They make an informed decision based on the evidence provided. Something I'd expect every person here can agree with.

If in the future DNA evidence is brought to light which clears the accused, it doesn't mean the courts decision in the past was wrong, just that there is now better evidence to make said decision on.

It's like doing an experiment and getting result A. You broadcast this and others try it and agree. Ten years later, someone finds a factor that wasn't included in the initial tests thanks to some new technology and builds it in, proving result A incorrect and B correct instead. A might have been the wrong answer for ten years, but if the technology wasn't around to let the performers of A know this, how would they have been able to factor it in? At the time, the decision to accept result A was correct.

Before I make a judgement, I'd like to see some numbers for the guilty:innocent ratio. At the moment, I don't see how it could be that high, but again, numbers first.

I agree, there needs to be a lot of eye witnesses to make a testimony accurate.

Me personally, if the evidence points to A as the answer, I go with A. I make an informed decision based on the evidence. If a person has all evidence against them saying they did it, you can't blame anyone for agreeing with it. We as a society make mistakes. The question is, how many guilty people are we willing to let go just on the off chance that one of them is innocent? Again, I need numbers to come up with a conclusion here.

 

[zomgwtf]

Did you leave out deterrence intentionally?

Deterence does not work. I'm pretty sure this has been studied to no end and while random reports come out claiming HEYYYY IT WORKS! Take them with a grain of salt. I mean reports and studies also come out saying that the world is 6000 years old and global warming isn't occurring.

I mean why are death rates consistently lower or equal in states without death penalty vs. those with? If it were such a great deterent as has been suggested then it would be completely logical that murder rates would be extremely high in states without the death penalty.

Why after a country abolishes the death penalty murder rates do not sky rocket? I've studied abolishment of the death penalty in Canada for law and how it relates to extradition of criminals.

Execuctions save lives? Really? That's a non-credible statement if I ever heard one. I mean I could probably take the exact same data and show that death penalty actually causes more deaths.

They are never innocent? Really? You actually believe without a doubt in your mind that every single person ever put to death was guilty of the crime they were convicted of? I have to call ******** on that one, too many people are later found innocent after being convicted for me to think that somehow capital crime cases get it right everytime 100% no doubts.

As wll, I've read here in this thread people thinking it saves money. Really? Citations for this? Everything I've ever read states that it costs taxpayers a hell of a lot more to keep the death penalty vs. sentencing life without parole.

 

[zomgwtf]

The question is, how many guilty people are we willing to let go just on the off chance that one of them is innocent? Again, I need numbers to come up with a conclusion here.

Who exactly is being let go? Guilty criminals? Where? Where you live?

 

[nismaratwork]

Interesting words from somebody who publicly recognized that he would like to kill the would be assassin of his daughter.

Oh enough games DanP... do you have any clue how transparent this is? Yes, I answered your hypothetical about my hypothetical daughter, which, when taken out of context sounds like I think I should be allowed to kill the hypothetical killer. IN context, I was using that as an example describing why personal grief and anger shouldn't be a factor in these cases.

Your "view" is on record pages back... you don't give a ****, and just want people who commit crimes to get reciprocal treatment because to you that's "right". You stated you have no issue except forwarding your political agenda...we've all heard it... maybe now you should work on it being compelling.