both are Homicide.

Does someone have to be innocent to be a murder victim? Is anyone completely innocent? Or do you mean that onece someone has committed a homicide, then they are not eligible to be a murder victim anymore?

It says "homicide" on the death certificate....

Talon and Neo, lets keep it civil please; stick to the debating facts instead of exchanging attacks and insults.

Since we abolished the death penalty the advance in forensic science has jumped enormously - DNA testing for example. You can KNOW someones guilt these days. There are certain criminals in our jails now who are really living the life of riley, Beverley Allitt and Rose West I've read live in 4 star comfort, with jobs that pay them. These people should be executed in my opinion.

If the death penalty were available for Ian Huntley - I'd pull the lever myself.

Hmmm, I guess you’re right the death penalty is murder, but a justified murder then. I take back what i said earlier.

Li9fe in prison works 2 but the SO DOES THE DEATH PENALTY

So, when a child rapist has raped, tortured, then murdered a child you believe the perpetrator deserves to be treated with dignity? Imo, they should be treated the way they've treated their victims...unfortunately, they're treated much better than the way their victim was/is.
What about an elderly person being raped and beaten, if not murdered or mugged, for a few dollars?
There is not a shred of dignity in anyone who can deliver such horror upon children or the elderly. Yet, you believe in the perp's dignity... Whereas, it seems to me, the perp displays no dignity whatsoever... Sanctity of life isn't even a consideration...so where does dignity fit in?
When one takes a life they should forfeit their own, and be grateful they don't receive the same horror they've inflicted on others... How many murderers have made a deal to plead guilty to avoid the death penalty? They can't take what they dish out... All the more reason to rid this planet of them.

Yes they are. However, the *intent* is what matters. There are many degrees in law defining intent.



Children are completely innocent... and, again, intent is a factor which determines the degree of homicide.
It's law enforcements intent to stop a homicidal maniac from murdering again... A murderer's intent is self gratuitous... Very different reasons for eliminating life.

Yes. Not so much for them, but for the society in which I want to live. That person should be put away for life with no chance of ever leaving the prison, of that I have no doubt. But the socitey I want to live in does not torture or execute people, or denigrate people to subhuman status no matter what they've done. Look at the societies that do that...look at Iraq, for instance. The US wanted to give Sadddam a dignified execution, but he was handed over to the Iraqis' who spit on him and chanted insults as he took the drop. And look at what kind of society they live in... looting, religious fanaticism, suicide bombers...a general disregard for human life and human dignity.

So yes, I believe that a child rapist/murder should be treated like a human being...not for him or her, but for the sake of the society in which I live.



And how many innocent people took that same plea because a jury is an unpredictible entity?



And the desire to kill someone in vengence or punishment isn't self-gratuitous? Why denigrate society when we could change laws so that criminals are locked up perpetually?

I'm watching a series right now called "prison nation," I think. The prison system in the US is HORRIBLE. Criminals come in with little experience and leave hardened, violent, and with criminal connections. Clearly, this has to change, clearly there are SERIOUS flaws with the US prison system. That much we can agree on.

Your president sets the standard for corruption...and he gets a way with it completely unscathed.



Not many, would be my guess. Who would confess to a crime they didn't commit due to fickle jury fears? Unless they're very young and easily manipulated I can't imagine why anyone would admit guilt - especially if they're innocent.



No, it's not self gratuitous...LE doesn't have an agenda, other than getting a rabid human off the streets. There is no reward for an arrest...it's their job. They may feel good about about an arrest, but they aren't getting sexually excited like a child predator would.



The criminals you speak of may have little experience with incarceration, but I'd wager they had lots of criminal experience and, for once, they got caught and are paying for their criminality.
I do agree that non violent offenders should not be housed with violent offenders...and putting people in jail for smoking marijuana is absolutely ridiculous. The U.S. prisons are full of people whose only crime was to possess pot...Yet, some prisons will let out rapists and burglars to make room for people convicted of having pot on them. It's beyond the absurd...
Too, prisons should not be privatized, imo. Prisons should have programs to educate inmates. Teach them a trade rather than warehouse them...then, maybe, upon release, they'd have a trade to fall back on, rather than resort to more crime.

In an argument about the death penalty, I believe that's either a red herring or a straw man..not sure which without going to my list of fallacious arguments. What does the US president and his corruption have to do with a death penalty discussion?



Someone who has circumstantial evidence against them and a lawyer who understands how Jury's vote. My guess is that there are several. When you didn't commit the murder, but evidence places you at the scene with motive, come on...... I would wager it happens more often than you think. But let's call that point moot.



so doesn't perpetual imprisonment satisfly the desire to "get a rabid human off the streets?"

I also didn't know that rabies was a problem in the UK. Sounds like you need some sort of public health rabies awareness program, not the death penalty.

I'm playing deadpan in the face of your "rabid" comment. It belies an emotional venom that I believe clouds the judgement of many death penalty supportors.




I agree with that.

Yes... but make them do about 15 years in solitary confinement first. Then they have all that time to think about it!!!

That would drive a person insane. Do you think that part of the punishment should be the loss of your sanity?

What about the families of the victims they have murdered... do you not think they suffer?

No civilized country should have the death penalty.

Of course I know they suffer. But the point of incarceration is one or both of two things:

To rehabilitate a person who is likely to be returned to society
To keep a person not likely to return to society perpetually seperated from society.

I'll even give you a third purpose, though it's one I disagree with: To provide sufficient punishment as to make the offender fearful of returning to prison.

which one of these do you think driving a person insane accomplishes?

The function of prison is not to "get even" or inflict cruel or unusual punishment, such as intentionally driving a person insane. What kind of savage and bloodthirsty society would intentionally drive their criminals insane in vengence?

1. You cannot rehabilitate a peadophile... it has been proven, they will always have those tendencies. Most will not take it as far as murder but some do. Once convicted they should never be let out again.

2. They are not inside to enjoy themselves, they are there for punishment... You suffer all your life if you have lost a child and you never get over it...

3. It depends on the type of murder...

I agree that peadophiles should never live free again. But I do not want to live in a society that drives them insane in retaliation. REAL peadophiles, not 19 year old boys that have sex with their 16 year old girlfriends, or even people in their 30s who have sex with someone in their teens. A real peodifile is attracted to CHILDREN, and teenagers have the bodies of adults, not children. Emotional people who do not think logically have labeled 19 year olds having sex with 16 year olds as sex offenders and peodophiles in this country. That is not right.

As for them enjoying themselves, I agree. Prison should not be an enjoyable experience. But to drive someone insane? Is that really the type of society you want to live in? Try to think logically instead of emotionally. Do you really want to belong to a society where the government has the ability to impose insanity as a punishment? Myself, I don't even want to live in a society where the sole purpose of prison is "punishment."

I am not talking about making people insane... You commit a crime you get punished for it... 75% of offenders commit crimes when they are released.

I think the problem with society today that there isn't enough punishment.. i.e. kids get away with to much and are allowed to do what they want. I am not talking about beating I have a teenage son, he knows that if he gets out of line the things he enjoys will be taken away for a while i.e cell phone, computer etc... luckily we have never had to do this but he knows.

But we already know that punishment does not detur criminals, who lack the ability to reason cause and effect. If they had this ability, they would not be criminals to begin with, they would have gotten jobs.

Surely, you must logically place at least as much emphasis on rehabilitation in prison as punishment, right? Consider what a harshly punished felon with no rehabilitation, education, or job skills is going to do when they get out. Will they just cower in fear and poverty for the rest of their lives? Or will they commit worse crimes and have a genuine hate and bitterness for the society that so horrendously punished them?

Can we agree that punishement without rehabilitation is futile and self defeating?

For crimes not including murder 'yes' but for murder in my opinion especially premeditated 'no' they should never get released into society again... life should mean life or the death penalty.

They have it pretty easy in jail from what I have seen.... My husband had some official business with the sheriff in which I was involved, he decided to give us a tour of the county jail... they have TV's 3 meals a day and are kept warm. There are a lot of poor people who are law abiding citizens that don't get these luxuries.

One thing I remember about it was the stench of BO... I came out feeling I stunk of it..

I support life without parole for convicted murders, meaning a real life sentence. But if they are seperated from society for life, why kill them then?

It's not cheaper than execution, it's not a deturant, it doesn't bring the victim back. but what it does do is brings our society down a peg.



The jail is not prison. Most of the people in jail are awaiting trial. Do you remember "innocent until proven guilty?" Those who are convicted and stay in jail, not prison, have usually been convicted on minor crimes.

You think that keeping a convict warm and fed is too lenient? What kind of a person thinks that? What kind of a society do you want to live in where convicts are starved and left to freeze?

that's not true. there are many social programs that will supplement heat and food. If prison is so nice, why are you wasting your life going to work every day when you could just commit a felony and go to prison and live a better life?

What I am saying life in jail/prison is not that bad considering their punishment...

How many people have had their identities stolen and left people in debt that they cannot afford to pay their bills?
How many people have been murdered had not had life insurance, which means their other half is faced with all the heart ache of financially worry.
How many people have been robbed of all their possessions that they have worked so hard for all their life by some criminal and been left with nothing...
The list goes on and on..

It is just my opinion... the punishment should fit the crime..

The victim never wins..

And you think that turning off the heat and not feading the adequately is the sensible answer?




You're arguing from an emotional perspective. If someone has bills that they can't pay becasue of identity theft, the answer is to have a program to relieve that debt and then give the offender job skills, make them server their time, and then garnish their wages until they pay the money back.

Institute a social program where uninsured families of murder victims get some period of living expenses and education and job training.



Killing or torturing the robber is not going to get their possessions back.

It's neither. You were the one who stated concern for the society you live in. I just pointed out that your society has a corrupt president - so it's a little late to worry about your society... Almost 4k soldiers have been killed for lies...is that okay with you?
Yet, here you are, defending sexual predators...wanting to give them dignity...which they don't deserve.



Ever hear "guilty by association"? If someone is at the scene of the crime - they should've done whatever it took to stop the crime. If they didn't they're deemed accomplices...



Why should the taxpayer have to house a rabid person for the rest of their lives? We put rabid dogs down and think we've done a good deed... I'd say the same should apply to a predator...



Jump to conclusions till the cows come home...it won't make you right. I have no idea what problems the UK has - I've never been there.



I wonder how much dignity you'd give the person who raped, tortured then murdered a child of yours?
Emotional venom? Ill treatment of children is a highly emotional topic, for most, I'd think. Apparently it's not for you.
You're all for dignifying someone who could do something so horrendous.
Whatever floats you boat...

How many murders have been committed by predators? Do you think they're "civilized" and worthy of a life they don't grant their victims? They get to live...too bad their victims don't.

Ah, red herring then. You're attempting to link two unrelated issues to distract from your weak position.

Followed up nicely by an ad hominim attack, trying to paint me as being on the side of sexual predators, which I am not. I simply want to live in a society that does not torture and kill it's criminals.



So are you then advocating the death penalty for the criminals associates too? My point was that circumstantial evidence is sometimes enough to make a jury convict, therefore people who are not guilty sometimes take a guilty plea to avoid the death penalty for a crime they did not commit.



Criminals are not rabid. We don't have a rabies problem here in the US. Or are you so full of venom and emotion that you need to dehumanize the people you want the state to kill? Apparently, that's the case.

It costs more to execute someone than to house them, and even if it didn't, money is not a reason to kill someone. I'm willing to pay to house a criminal for life if it means living in a society that doesn't kill it's own citizens, and if it means that the criminal is seperated from me perpetually. Freedom costs. Freedom from an oppressive government costs. Sometimes in lives, sometimes in taxes. Freedom from a government that can kill it's own citizens is worth some taxes.



I would probably want to torture and kill them. but I would be doing what you are doing right now...arguing from an emotional postion, not a logical position. Ultimately, I would hope that my society would keep them locked up for their entire life, and I would hope that I could rid myself of the hate and desire to harm them. Killing them would not bring my child back, nor do I think it make me stop missing my child or hurting for the loss of them. I hope I would be a big enough person to realize that denigrating my society is not going to bring my child back, nor will it prevent other people from harming others.

An emotional position doesn't mean an illogical position. As you've conceded from a victim perspective they want justice to be done..
which is taken into account by the courts; not much btw..just a mild acknowledgment.
If you take away emotion from the concept of justice then what do you have? "One carbon unit..eliminated six carbon units"
which is pretty much how I view the British justice system views crime.

It does when it is without logic.


Our justice system should be, and is designed to be, free from emotion. It often fails. Minorities nobody cares about are killed and the killers get 5 years. A minority kills someone that we FEEL for and we use the death penalty.

Justice is the application of law without emotion. I forget who said that, but it was someone far greater than me.

the way i see it sitting in a cell for the rest or you're life is a way worst punishment then death. most of those guys doing life with to die. i would say no to the death pentalty because of what i said first and also my belief in we all got to face our deeds when we die. my ansewer is no, but i'm not one of those crazed liberals that say don't kill a killer but go ahead and kill a baby in the womb if you don't want it.......

I don't know where it's like where you come from, but over here in the UK - the justice system is a joke - read this, it's one example of MANY of our worst serial killers.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article266570.ece

I believe 100% that the death penalty should be reinstated in the UK.

Oh, Thank God! We're all safe from another one of thosed crazed liberals that think there's a difference between a fetus or a sub-fetus blob of cells and a fully formed human outside the whomb!

Being English and living in the US I can see both sides... I must admit the UK system is more lenient than the US. But as what I have seen inside jail/prison isn't much different. It is not my idea of punishment...

Then change the prison system, not reinstate the death penalty. If you really think the US prison system is so bad (and I agree) then why would you trust the same people who mismanage the prison system to properly manage killing people?

Put them all to death. Problem solved.

In the UK it is legal for a termination to be carried out up to 24 weeks of pregnancy, but most hospitals and clinics will not consider termination beyond 18 to 20 weeks. For this reason alone, if a woman is considering termination, then she should discuss the situation with her GP sooner rather than later.

Here's a 21-week old foetus


and a 18 week old foetus.


A bit more than a collection of cells. So, it's a valid point.. we do have the death penalty in the UK. The crime? For being unwanted. The sentence -death.
But, from an unemotional perspective- it keeps the Carbon unit population down.. unfortunately immigration keeps the carbon unit population in the UK to increase.

I agree. I wish that there would never be another abortion ever again. I just don't think that legislation is the way to prevent abortions.



At 24 weeks, yea. But at 8 weeks? 8 weeks?

There is a gray area and most of you pro lifers know it.

How can I say that? If there was a building in the middle of your city and 5 year old children were being taken there and butchered, you would do whatever you had to do to stop it, even if against the law. You would barge in armed and start shooting to save those 5 year old kids. Your outrage would be beyond containment. But when it comes to abortion, most of you don't do much more than legislate and protest at abortion clinics. Why? Because even though you see a fetus as a life (and I agree with you), deep down you know it's not the same as killing a child outside of the womb.

Now, I might be in favor of putting a pretty strict limit to the time that an abortion can legally be preformed, but I would much rather fight abortion through education and contraception, and support for young mothers with social programs instead of just making it illegal across the board, which I don't think will do much besides driving it underground again.

Their crime(s) might be of a horrendous nature, but everyone deserves a second chance. If we're talking seriously mentally ill people, keep them in mental institutions for the rest of their lives, both to protect the society from them, and to protect them from society. If we're talking pedophiles who have repeatedly molested children, go for chemical castration. A death penalty is just a legalized form of eugenics where the government can legally kill individuals they find 'unsuitable'.

No, No I don't think they are civilized. But I am.

well 24 is the legal limit..I'm not sure why, recently there was a debate to lower it to 20-weeks but nothing happened.
Here's a eight week old baby.. imo still more than a collection of cells.. gives me the creeps..




I'm not a pro-lifer as such, just looking into the facts.. I've never really looked into it before.. quite interesting.

Actually, my position is very strong when it comes to dealing with child predators and elderly abusers/predators...



When you wish to give predators dignity you appear to be on their side. Again - you live in a society which sends innocents into illegal wars - and you're concerned about predators rights, not the youths dying for administrative lies. Either way, US citizens are dying...



It depends on the crime. If an adult could prevent a child from a predator and doesn't, then, yes, I'm all for the DP for them...



Are you kidding?? They dehumanize themselves when they rape a CHILD - and you want to give them dignity? We're the only species on this planet that rapes their young, which speaks to how aberrant the behavior is.
I believe in letting nature take its course...if a predator within the pack gets out of line they're either killed or culled. Culling is certain death in nature.



It only costs more to execute someone because of the appeals... I say the appeals for death row prisoners need changing. Especially if there's irrefutable evidence of their guilt.

What don't you understand about your society is already killing its own citizens? Kids are sent to fight an illegal war...and are coming home in body bags. Do you support the killing of thousands of your citizens? Have you raised your voice against the invasion of Iraq? Or do you just defend the indefensible?



True. You wouldn't benefit by their death...but society would. One less predator to concern ourselves with...
You're locked into religion, which I am not... I will never feel guilty, or compassion, for anyone who rapes a child. You,otoh, wish to dignify the depraved... Shame on you.

Most pedophiles have molested or raped a child numerous times before they're caught... Second chances don't exist for them, imo.



I'd agree with that...*if* mental illness is the reality. Not someone committing a crime then using mental illness as a scape goat.



Chemical castration doesn't prevent rape or molestation. Sexual stimulation begins in the brain, not the groin. There are many ways to have sexual contact without penetration...and, objects can be used to penetrate.

Why would you say that I'm not concerned for "the youths dying for administrative lies?"

Because you are resorting to character assination and you can't continue your argument without employing tactics that skew the argument. But smart people see through this. We're talking about the death penalty, not what you ignorantly assume my position on the war in Iraq is.



I disagree. I don't think anyone ever gives up their humanity no matter what they've done and I think that's a very dangerous philosophy.



For the sake of our society, I think that the humanity and dignity of even our worst prisoners should be preserved. Not for them, but because I don't want to live in a savage society that tortures and kills it's criminals.

,

I don't think that's true. Can you support this? Because I learned in biology classes that rape is very common in the animal world, and even that dolphins will isolate a lone dolphin from another pod and rape it repeatedly, even if it is a young dolphin.



We're not a pack of dogs, though. And I don't believe we should behave as such. Are you also in favor of the rape that occurs routinely in the animal world on unwilling females? Or do you just want to pick and choose which animal behaviors you want us to follow? You're making me angry, with your character assinations and your red herrings, so should I be able to assault you like animals do when they get angry? Of course not. I'm a human being and I choose to respect your humanity.



So, in other words, in your blind anger you want to change a large part of what the United States is founded upon, the right to appeal and to due process. And you have the nerve to deploy the red herring of questioning my patriotism because of the war in Iraq?



Why don't you start a seperate thread on this instead of trying to muddy the waters in a thread about both Britian and the death penalty. NOT about the iraq war.




No, shame on you.

Shame on you for letting your emotions rule your thought process.
Shame on you for assuming that I'm for the iraq war
Shame on you for assuming that I have a religion or that my standpoint is based on any religion
Shame on you for wanting to erase the right to due process that countless americans have died defending

Clearly, your emotions have lead you to even make innacurate generalizations and judgements about me. I can only be thankful that there are some people in office in the US that do not hold positions based on false assumptions and emotional responses.

If they have repeatedly molested children, then castrate them. Preferably by a chemical castration, but if needed, a full-on castration (but this should only be done in rare cases). Also, keep them under observation if they live in areas with a high number of children, or close to schools or kindergartens. A death penalty should, as I see it, only be given if crimes against humanity (i.e. genocide) have been committed, not for pedophilia, murder etc., however terrible such crimes are.

An eye for an eye and everyone shall be blind - Mahatma Gandhi

Obviously, if someone is using mental illness as a scapegoat, they shouldn't be put in an asylum, but rather be imprisoned. But most people feigning mental illness are busted, I guess. So someone trying to blame some made-up mental illness would soon be caught for lying.

As far as I know, chemical castration is meant to suppress sexual desires (correct me if I'm wrong), so there'd be little chance of molestation or rape if the drugs are administered properly. Of course, sterilizing a man after raping a woman would be an option, but that would also mean that the man would essentially be denied any form of consensual sex after prison, which wouldn't really be fair (except, as previously mentioned, in rare cases). And yes, there are many ways to have sex, and objects can be used to penetrate. But just because something can happen does not mean it will happen. Again: keep repeated sex offenders under observation.

I *assumed*... simply because of your religious stance. I'd guess you're a Bush**e...and it wouldn't surprise me to learn you voted for him...



<vBg> Oh, I get it...you're one of the "smart people".... You can interpret scripture for those of us who can't get 'what god or Jesus' meant...



Uh, in case you haven't noticed - a death penalty is being levied daily in Iraq against US troops.... It's a crime they're dying, imo. I see a parallel, even if you don't...



Uhhuh...Wanting children protected from predators is a "very dangerous philosophy"... your god doesn't protect them...someone has to speak for, and try to protect, them.



And I don't wish to live in a society where citizens are raping, torturing and murdering children... If that's not savage behavior I don't know what is....



I never said rape didn't occur, I said animals don't rape their *young*.... What does "young dolphin" mean? A day old? A week? 5 months? Please elucidate...
Some child predators have been known to rape children younger than a month old... But, hey, according to you that person is worthy of dignity...

2Bcontinued...

True. We're pack animals... of the homo genus.



It seems to me that females come into estrus...and give off a scent which tells the male they are ready to procreate... Most species are like this... Most of the male species, except the human variety, will not bother a female unless she is in heat... Females have been known to become quite *testy* when males want to copulate if she's not ready...



It's okay for you to insinuate I'm not very smart... I mean, coming from you it *must* be the truth... It's okay for you to snipe and say I'm ignorant... And *you're * becoming angry? lol! Ooookayyyy. No hyprocrisy oozing from your corner, is there? Still, you suggest you're treating me with respect... Uhhuh....



Ummm, those would be *your* words...
...careful... not all your interpretations are accurate...



I don't begrudge anyone the right to appeal... It's how many appeals those savage, child rapists get that I take issue with. But thanks for putting your spin on my words... rather dizzying, really.



Nice duck....



Lol! Humans, especially women, are emotional beings. Don't forget you're angry with me.... what does anger do for your thought process? Hmmmm?



I'll give you this one... mea culpa.



Let's see...I'm fairly certain you mentioned wanting to be a "moral" person... Imo, morality is a concept of man, like the bible. I put those two together and derive your morality is based on the religion you've been taught, and accept as the word of god... I suppose I could be wrong...



You're quite the dramatist...



Relax...your emotions are getting away on you...



You *are* a Bush**e... My deepest condolences... : )

Suppress doesn't mean extinquish... Sex is a very strong drive in the male species. Nothing short of destroying the sexual part of the brain will deter a predator/sexual deviant.
<snip>



How often do we hear that some sexual predator didn't report to the authorities that they'd taked up residence in a new town and didn't register in that town as a sex offender? How do you propose sex offenders should be kept under observation?

It obviously does not extinguish sexual desires, but I'd say it would reduce them to levels where they are so low that they rarely have any real effect.

Keep them under surveillance by having an international police database of convicted child molesters/sex offenders accessible for police all over the world, wiretap their phones if necessary, have police check up on them regularly by visiting their homes etc.

There is a national database for registered sex offenders...however, not all of them register. They flee the area they're charged in, and start anew somewhere else.
There is also an international data base: http://www.mako.org.au/sexoffenderregistries.html

It's not police policy to babysit sexual predators...they've enough on their plate without tracking how many predators there are in any given area. In the US, alone, there are over 300,000 *registered* offenders... it wouldn't surprise me to learn there are almost as many who aren't registered. If distribution was equal - that's 6k per state.
Frightening numbers, to say the least.

They shouldn't be asked to register, but forced to register.

As for babysitting predators, personally I think that would be better use of the police's time than pulling in people doing drugs, but that's another debate. But I do agree that there's quite a lot of offenders, even when excluding the unregistered sex offenders. And to that, add all those who are never caught.

Yes, you are wrong.

As for physical castration, never in the us, not while me and people like me still draw breath. There is NO way, under any circumstances, that I will ever abide my government cutting a body part off of anybody as part of criminal punishment.


As far as you, graylady, I would appreciate if we could stay on topic: the death penalty.

Can you do that? Can you argue the death penalty without going off on tangests like the war in iraq or making sweeping, and incorrect, generalizations about what you believe my politics to be? What does that have to do with the death penalty? Nothing. But you resort to ad hominim attacks. and it's pretty funny, I've been called a LOT of things in the past 8 years, but "conservative" is not one of them. Do you know many conservatives who argue this passionately against the death penalty? Your logical falacy of an ad hominim attack achieves a whole new level of disregard for logic when you accuse a person condemning the death penalty of being a conservative.

But enough of that.

Do you have anything else of value to contribute to the debate? I think I understand your position at this point.
did you start a thread about the war in iraq like I asked you? I would be more than happy to discuss my thoughts on the iraq war there, not on a thread about the death penalty, where it serves no purpose other than for you to make erroneous generalizations about me in an attempt to assignate my character and stereotype me.