Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply US-PHARMACIES UGL OZ
Raptor Labs UGFREAK OxygenPharm
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplyUS-PHARMACIES UGL OZUGFREAKRaptor LabsOxygenPharm

Death Penalty Opponents

Longhorn85

New member
The bastard who abducted that young girl at the car wash. If he confesses, do you agree that he should be executed?

I think he should be exterminated in public, next week, and that it should be televised.

It would serve as a deterrent for would-be offenders and also provide justice.
 
ttlpkg said:
The bastard who abducted that young girl at the car wash. If he confesses, do you agree that he should be executed?

I think he should be exterminated in public, next week, and that it should be televised.

It would serve as a deterrent for would-be offenders and also provide justice.

while I'm all for capital punishment, there is no way in hell it's a deterrent. sicko's all of a sudden aren't going to be like "well shit, I coulld get the chair for kidnapping and killing some little kid, I better not do that". I don't think it should be televised either, that's something you'd see in North Korea or Iraq when Saddam was running the show. WE're a little more civilized I'd like to think.
 
we should put more people to death....and I'm all for public extermination.....they could sell tickets and create some nice government revenue.
 
If he abducted and killed the girl then life in prison. The death penalty doesn't work. It only gives you the right to be 2nd hand murderer as an advocate of "the state".
 
I'm pro death penalty, the system just needs to be more efficient, but there is a pile of data showing it doesn't deter anything. There are instances of violent crime rates increasing in states after they adopted the death penalty.
 
WODIN said:
If he abducted and killed the girl then life in prison. The death penalty doesn't work. It only gives you the right to be 2nd hand murderer as an advocate of "the state".
while I used to think that way, you have to consider that there is always a chance he might escape. and probably one of the top duties of the state is to protect it's citizens, so I sorta disagree. Solitary confinement is my 2nd choice if captial punishment isn't an option.
 
Put him in jail for the rest of his life with the guys who hate child killer's!

Allow the inmates to punish this sick sucker the rest of his life on a daily basis!
 
jerkbox said:
we should put more people to death....and I'm all for public extermination.....they could sell tickets and create some nice government revenue.

Bor that's the best idea I think I've ever heard. Kinda like gladiator-type shiznit.
 
JavaGuru said:
there is a pile of data showing it doesn't deter anything.

I believe it would more effectively deter if it was more timely, especially in cases such as this. If he gets executed two or three years from now, it won't have the same effect.
 
The death penalty is not about being a deterrent to me as it is spending less of my tax dollars keeping these scumbags alive. Fry them all quickly.
 
jerkbox said:
we should put more people to death....and I'm all for public extermination.....they could sell tickets and create some nice government revenue.


Definitely agree!

LTFFMED... I hear ya. I'm sick of my tax dollars going to keep prisoners alive. Recently in PA, they let a 75 year old who raped and murdered a 12 year old girl in the late 60s out of jail. While he was there he got a bachelor's degree from Villanova University (one of the most expensive schools in the country). This makes me sick.
 
The Nature Boy said:

while I used to think that way, you have to consider that there is always a chance he might escape. and probably one of the top duties of the state is to protect it's citizens, so I sorta disagree. Solitary confinement is my 2nd choice if captial punishment isn't an option.

I understand your position. let's just send them all to France.
 
I believe it would more effectively deter if it was more timely, especially in cases such as this. If he gets executed two or three years from now, it won't have the same effect.

In my opinion here are reasons why it doesn't deter.

1. Many murders are crimes of passion.

2. Many murders are committed under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.

3. The vast majority of murders committed in the city where I live are gang or other crime related violence.

The first two instances interfere with the murderer from actually weighing the consequences of his actions and he may be in such a mental state as to not care whether he lives or dies at that moment anyway.

The last instance is a result of "criminal culture" , certain afronts must be punished by "offing" someone. Likewise, the mental stress of an armed criminal act will often interfere with decision making to the point where things escalate beyond what was originally intended and someone gets murdered. I think you would be hard pressed to find a robber who intended murdering the clerk when he walked through the door. Finally, criminals do the dumbest things regardless. I 've heard stories from countless cops at my gym about some idiot running because he had a minor warrant and ended up with a much more serious charge for the fleeing.
 
LTFFMED said:
The death penalty is not about being a deterrent to me as it is spending less of my tax dollars keeping these scumbags alive. Fry them all quickly.

It cost 10x as much to execute someone as it does to give them a life sentance.
 
LTFFMED said:
The death penalty is not about being a deterrent to me as it is spending less of my tax dollars keeping these scumbags alive. Fry them all quickly.

It;s more expensive to execute them. Just so you know.
 
ttlpkg said:


I believe it would more effectively deter if it was more timely, especially in cases such as this. If he gets executed two or three years from now, it won't have the same effect.

You're wrong. Many countries have this type of system, as did the US for most of its history, and guess what? Crime didn;t go away. Murder didn't stop.
 
JavaGuru said:


In my opinion here are reasons why it doesn't deter.

1. Many murders are crimes of passion.

2. Many murders are committed under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.

3. The vast majority of murders committed in the city where I live are gang or other crime related violence.


None of these apply in this particular case. FRY HIM!
 
MattTheSkywalker said:


You're wrong. Many countries have this type of system, as did the US for most of its history, and guess what? Crime didn;t go away. Murder didn't stop.

But justice was served. I'm not so naive to think murder would stop.
 
The Nature Boy said:

one of the top duties of the state is to protect it's citizens,

Maybe in North Korea it is. In the US, the only duty is to protect the *rights* of its citizens.

It's more than just semantics - we can impose curfews and chip implants in the name of "protecting" the citizens. "Protecting" the citizens is usually the justification for martial law.

As soon as you start looking to the state to protect you, you might as well give up all of your rights.
 
JavaGuru said:


In my opinion here are reasons why it doesn't deter.

1. Many murders are crimes of passion.

2. Many murders are committed under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.

3. The vast majority of murders committed in the city where I live are gang or other crime related violence.

The first two instances interfere with the murderer from actually weighing the consequences of his actions and he may be in such a mental state as to not care whether he lives or dies at that moment anyway.

The last instance is a result of "criminal culture" , certain afronts must be punished by "offing" someone. Likewise, the mental stress of an armed criminal act will often interfere with decision making to the point where things escalate beyond what was originally intended and someone gets murdered. I think you would be hard pressed to find a robber who intended murdering the clerk when he walked through the door. Finally, criminals do the dumbest things regardless. I 've heard stories from countless cops at my gym about some idiot running because he had a minor warrant and ended up with a much more serious charge for the fleeing.

If I can add another

4. Some/most murderers, are so fucked up that they don't give a shit about the death penalty and getting killed is the furthest thing from their minds. A SANE person would think about the possibility of getting caught and being executed, but I suspect a high percentage of people who kill don't even think about the repercussions for one second because they are fucked up in the head. A normal person doesn't abduct kids and kill them.

that being said, go ahead and kill then. but the deterrent factor is overrated.
 
ttlpkg said:


None of these apply in this particular case. FRY HIM!

Clearly you need the government to make you feel good about yourself.

What if the worng person was executed? Since people are freed from prison all the time, what makes you think it couldn't happen?

Do you trust your government so much that you want to give it the ability to execute people?
 
MattTheSkywalker said:


Maybe in North Korea it is. In the US, the only duty is to protect the *rights* of its citizens.

It's more than just semantics - we can impose curfews and chip implants in the name of "protecting" the citizens. "Protecting" the citizens is usually the justification for martial law.

As soon as you start looking to the state to protect you, you might as well give up all of your rights.

what are the rights of citizens?
 
for everyone that obviously commented the crime and has gotten a "life in prison" sentence you should have a week to live (to say good bye to who ever) then be killed.

and wtf is the point in giving someone a double or triple life sentence? or giving a 40 year old a 40 year sentence? what the hell? he' s in prison and everyone’s tax money is going to 80 year olds in prison who need all this special shit to stay alive
 
ttlpkg said:
The bastard who abducted that young girl at the car wash. If he confesses, do you agree that he should be executed?

I think he should be exterminated in public, next week, and that it should be televised.

It would serve as a deterrent for would-be offenders and also provide justice.


This is flawed thinking.

The Death Penalty accomplishes what now?

What has it accomplished?

Oh, right! I know, before any person is about to go through with a crime that could possibly render the death penalty they usually stop right before the act and say "oh shitsky, the death penalty awaits, better not do this". What a bunch of shit, death penalty does not do anything positive.
 
The big issue with the death penalty is not an issue of whether it is a deterrent - that question has been answered by a mountain of evidence that indicates the death penatly is not a deterrent at all.

Anyone who has researched this to any degree will tell you that death rows are populated largely by the kinds of people who lack the mental faculties to understand the consequences of an action or to think something through that far.

That question answered definitively, we must now ask ourselves: is it the correct punishment for people who commit the ultimate crime: 1st degree murder.

The answer is a matter of opinion. If you believe that life in prison is the correct punishment, then the discussion stops. This is a discussion of the death penalty, so let's discuss the idea that death IS the correct punishment for those convicted of first degree murder.

If we are going to allow the state to execute people, it is a moral (not to mention legal) imperative to make sure the correct person is apprehended, tried, convicted and executed.

It is a fact of our justice system that the wrong people are often convicted and impriosned. When these misatkes are made known, the convict is freed, and can be compensated. It doesn't give them their time back, but at least it does something.

With the death penalty, you're not coming back. Yet the standard for *conviction* in a death penalty case does not change. A standard which results in many incorrect imprisonments should not be applied to the death penalty.

Some death penalty advocates aruge that a standard of "absolute certainty" be imposed on death penalty cases. This is a tough standard - you'd pretty much have to see a videotape of the murder to be absolutely certain. Even then, it'd be hard to tell on a grainy convenience store video.

The problem with absolute certainty is that of inconsistency. How can you tell someone that they are getting life in prison for being convicted "beyond a reasonable doubt" of second degree murder, but in the next courtroom, a guy is not getting the max sentence for his crime because the standard was different?

Life in prison and death are the same - the person is removed from society forever. The risk of escape is extremely small, yet it must be borne in order to prevent the execution of the wrong person. The only way the death penalty could be logically justified is on a standard of absolute certainty. But this cannot be applied; a justice system can't convict on two different standards - it's inconsistent and illogical. Therefore there are no logical impositions of the death penalty.

The death penalty is worng.
 
ttlpkg said:


But justice was served. I'm not so naive to think murder would stop.

How do you know justice is served by quick execution. You think people are not capable of manipulating a system to derive the death of others unjustly through that system?

Please.
 
one thing to sort of add to matts post is that as he said, the system is screwed up. as long as people cannot get the same level of legal assistance, it's not a fair and balanced system.

take into account the state of illinois. 13 of 25 death row inmates were released because they were eventually found to be innocent. The system was so fucked up they had to put a ban on executions.

"Anthony Porter spent 16 years on death row and once came within two days of an execution in 1998. He was acquitted at a new trial in 1999 after an investigation by Northwestern University journalism students led to another man confessing to the double murder.

In another case, Rolando Cruz and Alejandro Hernandez spent 10 years on death row for the rape and murder of a 10-year-old girl. They were released in 1995 when evidence of police misconduct surfaced and when DNA exonerated them. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...ode=&contentId=A32154-2002Oct15&notFound=true

So for those of you who wish to hurry the process of killing people along, imagine if it were you on death row and you DIDN'T commit the crime.
 
The media reports sensational items to get the publics interest up. Many more who are on death row are not innocents who were railroaded. In fact, many of these cases are so obvious that it almost seems like a joke to have the trial, the evidence is so overwhelming. Sure there are cases where someone is wrongfully convicted. But they are the exception, and not the rule. I also agree with whoever said that it is a 100% effective deturrant to the executed man.

It is ridiculous that currently executions cost in the millions of dollars range. I can think of about a million ways to reduce this cost. $300 for .357 mag. $1 per prisoner recurring costs for ammo. Let the victims family pull the trigger = priceless.
 
JuicePimp said:
The media reports sensational items to get the publics interest up. Many more who are on death row are not innocents who were railroaded.

ok fine. but is it ok to kill innocent people?
 
The Nature Boy said:


ok fine. but is it ok to kill innocent people?

Sometimes yes.

For example. You are at a school site carrying a 30-06 rifle. (hey its a hypo). Everyone is trapped in the auditorium by a mad bomber who has wired the room with explosives and is holding a girl in front of him so that no one can shoot him. He makes a move for the trigger of the bomb. You have a split second to decide. You know that your rifle can shoot through the girl and the bomber and save the other 200 kids in the room. Do you take the shot? What if it was your child?
 
JuicePimp said:


Sometimes yes.

For example. You are at a school site carrying a 30-06 rifle. (hey its a hypo). Everyone is trapped in the auditorium by a mad bomber who has wired the room with explosives and is holding a girl in front of him so that no one can shoot him. He makes a move for the trigger of the bomb. You have a split second to decide. You know that your rifle can shoot through the girl and the bomber and save the other 200 kids in the room. Do you take the shot? What if it was your child?

I'm talking about in the context of this thread.
 
WODIN said:


How do you know justice is served by quick execution. You think people are not capable of manipulating a system to derive the death of others unjustly through that system?

Please.

Yes, please. Please remember the case we are discussing. There is no manipulation at work here.
 
Re: Re: Death Penalty Opponents

havoc said:


The Death Penalty accomplishes what now?

What has it accomplished?


Ultimate penalty by society rendered. Message to would-be criminals. Elimination of a threat to society.
 
MattTheSkywalker said:
Life in prison and death are the same

The only way the death penalty could be logically justified is on a standard of absolute certainty.

The death penalty is worng.

No way Matt. Death is the ultimate punishment, not life in prison.

In a few days we will determine whether or not we have absolute certainty, and that was the premise of this thread.

Murder is wrong. The death penalty is right.
 
I am defintley for the death penalty.The only problem i have is they house the death row inmates for to long.The tax payers are keeping some of these criminals for years before they execute them........... costing millions of dollars.
 
ttlpkg said:


No way Matt. Death is the ultimate punishment, not life in prison.

In a few days we will determine whether or not we have absolute certainty, and that was the premise of this thread.

Murder is wrong. The death penalty is right.

We will not determine absolute certainty, we will convict to a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Certainly you know the difference, no? if you don't, look into teh thousand of people that are released from prison every year as wrongfully convicted.

If you want more drama, watch the documentary "Murder on Sunday Morning".


Any logical principle, to be tested, has to withstand examination when applied to a sample group larger than 1. With a group of 1, anything can be justified.

When logical scrutinty is applied to the death penalty, the justification for it in our current system evaporates.

You're letting your emotions take control of your brain, which, when applied to legislation, is never a good thing.
 
MattTheSkywalker said:


We will not determine absolute certainty, we will convict to a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

You're letting your emotions take control of your brain, which, when applied to legislation, is never a good thing.

We have the abduction on tape. If he confesses (see post #1), we have absolute certainty.

I think you are allowing legislative and legalistic concerns displace your common sense of justice, which is not good either.
 
To disagree with Matt, there is nothing inherently wrong with capital punishment, IF PROPERLY ENFORCED. When the evidence is virtually absolute, the execution of a murderer is justice, it is the removal of an individual who has no regard for the life of others, it is the removal of a "wrong".

In regards to the problem of costs, this is not directly related to the act of execution, but the extensive appeals process allowed. Definately there should be strict safeguards to ensure that an innocent person is not executed. ALL evidence should be allowed, nothing withheld. Some pro-death penalty advocates have argued that 10 years should be granted from the time of conviction to the time of execution, to allow for evidence to be discovered and presented.

This is a difficult issue, since it does allow for the elimination of one person's life. Although there is the possibility for error, we don't use this argument to justify abolishing the police system, which we know is rampant with abuse.

Here is a somewhat related issue:

A Politically Correct Nobel Peace Prize for Murder
by Michelle Malkin (November 24, 2000)

Stanley "Tookie" Williams was nominated for the 2001 Nobel Peace Prize this week. His supporters call him "wise," "compassionate," "well-read," and "wide-eyed like a child."

So just what are Tookie Williams' qualifications for one of the most prestigious honors in the world -- an award reserved for such eminent figures as Mother Teresa, the Dalai Lama, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the Quakers, and the Red Cross? Williams is a hulking body-builder, recovering drug addict, co-founder of the violent Crips street gang in South Central Los Angeles, and resident of death row in San Quentin, Calif.

Never mind his blood-soaked resume. Williams is a leader and a great man, say his blind admirers. A do-gooder in the Swiss Parliament nominated Williams for his "extraordinary" work writing "gritty" children's books and organizing an "international nonviolence effort for at-risk youth."

The "Tookie Speaks Out" series targets readers from kindergarten up to high school-age. The books purportedly discourage kids from joining gangs. But their ultimate effect is to glamorize the criminal life. Each installment is illustrated with glossy photos of Williams in various stages of thuggery. The books also provide handy pronunciation guides to teach children the gang lexicon ("homeboy," "mobbing," "set-tripping," and "gangbanging," for starters).

San Quentin prison officials report that juvenile delinquents idolize Williams. His propaganda has been endorsed by the Congressional Black Caucus.

As part of an ongoing public relations campaign to soften his image while he ties up the courts with specious legal appeals, Williams has been profiled sympathetically by People magazine, Time, the Los Angeles Times, and the ethnic press. He even appeared on a TV special introduced by President Clinton. Barbara Becnel, a crusading journalist who "edits" Williams' writings, once gushed that if the death-row inmate had "been raised in Brentwood instead of South Central, he'd be head of the state Democratic party."

Williams' groupies would have us believe that their Nobel Peace Prize nominee is a helpless victim of his environment, addled by low self-esteem, forced to turn to violence by racist oppressors, and now apologetic "for the atrocities which I and others committed against our race through gang violence."

Spare us the sob story. Here are the cold-blooded facts missing from Williams' Nobel Peace Prize application:

Williams was convicted of murdering four innocent bystanders with a sawed-off shotgun in 1979. There was nothing peaceful or compassionate about the way Alvin Owen, Thsai-Shai Yang, Yen-I Yang and Yee Chen Lin died. Owen was a white teenage clerk at a 7-11 convenience store, shot twice in the back of the head -- execution-style -- as he lay unarmed on the floor during a hold-up. A witness testified that Williams mocked the gurgling sounds Owen made as he lay dying. "You should have heard the way he sounded when I shot him," the witness quoted Williams.

The Yangs were Taiwanese immigrants who, along with their daughter Yee Chen Lin, were gunned down during a motel robbery two weeks after Owen died. Half of the daughter's face was blown off by the shotgun blasts, former L.A. County Deputy District Attorney Robert Martin told me in an interview this week. Williams called them "Buddhaheads," Martin recounted, and robbed them of petty cash.

Williams has yet to apologize to the victims' families. When the trial ended, Martin told me, Williams muttered to the prosecution team, "I'll get every one of you m -- -- -f -- -- -s."

Spoken like a Nobel laureate.

Tookie Williams was sentenced to die for these brutal crimes in 1981. But at the end of this year, he will have celebrated 19 more Thanksgivings, 19 more Christmases, and 19 more birthdays. That's 6,935 days more than Alvin Owen, Thsai-Shai Yang, Yen-I Yang and Yee Chen Lin were allowed to enjoy on this earth. We can only hope the Nobel committee sees through the soft-on-crime lobby's phony makeover of an unrepentant killer disguised as a death row Elmo doll.
 
ttlpkg said:


We have the abduction on tape. If he confesses (see post #1), we have absolute certainty.

I think you are allowing legislative and legalistic concerns displace your common sense of justice, which is not good either.

Yep, no one ever gives a false confession, do they? No such thing as coercion? Cops with associate's degrees are skilled interrogators who never default to abuse....

OK I'll stop.

I don't really know what your second sentence means. You live in Northern VA now - go look at the inscription on the Supreme Court building. Nevermind, I'll save you the time. It reads "Equal Justice Under Law".

My 'common sense of justice' is deeply rooted in legal concerns. So is our country's.

Equal Justice Under Law means a conviction will meet a certain punishment no matter who you are. (Got that Martha? :) )

Consistency is the heart of 'equal justice under law' and given the flaws of our system, the DP has no role here.
 
atlantabiolab said:
To disagree with Matt, there is nothing inherently wrong with capital punishment, IF PROPERLY ENFORCED. When the evidence is virtually absolute, the execution of a murderer is justice, it is the removal of an individual who has no regard for the life of others, it is the removal of a "wrong".

In regards to the problem of costs, this is not directly related to the act of execution, but the extensive appeals process allowed. Definately there should be strict safeguards to ensure that an innocent person is not executed. ALL evidence should be allowed, nothing withheld. Some pro-death penalty advocates have argued that 10 years should be granted from the time of conviction to the time of execution, to allow for evidence to be discovered and presented.

This is a difficult issue, since it does allow for the elimination of one person's life. Although there is the possibility for error, we don't use this argument to justify abolishing the police system, which we know is rampant with abuse.

Here is a somewhat related issue:


There is nothing inherently wrong with capital punishment . However, implementation in our current system fails.

The only way I imagine capital punishment to be justifiable is a system in which *all* convictions are absolutely certain.

In our present justice system, quite flawed, the death penalty is wrong.

If a peson were sentenced to 10 years for, let's say, armed robbery, but irrefutable evidence was presented that he was innocent, would anyone say that he should continue to sit in jail? Of course not - we'd all demand his immediate release.

In this scenario, the prisoner can be released and compensated. With the DP, obviously there is no return and no compensation. Yet we convict with the same standard and same risks. This is wrong.

The logical answer is "make the standard absolute certainty". Well, OK. But how do you reconcile the fact that in courtroom A, someone is getting life without parole for "beyond a reasonable doubt", but in Courtroom B, someone is getting less than the max sentence because a different standard was not met.

Thus while capital punishment is not inherently flawed, in our current system, it cannot be implemented in keeping with "other" punishments. There is no 'equal justice under law'.
 
ttlpkg said:


Yes, please. Please remember the case we are discussing. There is no manipulation at work here.

I was responding in relationship to the point of expidited judicial systems that matt commented on. You know that you just like to try and play the divergence game.
 
MattTheSkywalker said:
I don't really know what your second sentence means.

It was an attempt (unsuccessful apparently) to state the converse to your statement:

"You're letting your emotions take control of your brain, which, when applied to legislation, is never a good thing."
 
WODIN said:


It cost 10x as much to execute someone as it does to give them a life sentance.

Really?!? :confused:

I guess that just seems surprizing to me...

Or is that just figuring in the cost of room & Board...and not figuring in the cost of facilities, including utlities, maintenaince and upkeep. And then there are also the court costs, medical costs, psychological evaluations, etc.

I didn't do a search on this...no time right now, so that is why I am asking why the cost of an execution is so high?
 
Re: Re: Re: Death Penalty Opponents

ttlpkg said:


Ultimate penalty by society rendered. Message to would-be criminals. Elimination of a threat to society.

Does not work, never has, never will, next answer that makes no sense please
 
toga22 said:


Really?!? :confused:

I guess that just seems surprizing to me...

Or is that just figuring in the cost of room & Board...and not figuring in the cost of facilities, including utlities, maintenaince and upkeep. And then there are also the court costs, medical costs, psychological evaluations, etc.

I didn't do a search on this...no time right now, so that is why I am asking why the cost of an execution is so high?

It's not 10x - that's an exaggeration. But it is a multiple.

The costs are becasue of legal defense - many death row inmates weer being spared the DP because there was evidence of shittyl egal erpresentation.

States decided to opena version of a public defender's office ion order to makesure that the accused got fair representation.

This carries on through thr appeals process as well - the state is basically footing both sides of the bill.

If you're hungry for knowldege, eat the book "Among the Lowest of the Dead". A little bit of an agenda in there, but good facts.

The easy answer is "reduce the appeals" but that gets into the "absolute certainty" issue again, and many have been freed from death row years after conviction. So that isn't really fair either.

make sense?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Death Penalty Opponents

havoc said:


Does not work, never has, never will, next answer that makes no sense please

Why don't you ask the family of this girl who was snatched if it makes sense.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Death Penalty Opponents

ttlpkg said:


Why don't you ask the family of this girl who was snatched if it makes sense.

Again sir, Equal Justice Under Law - the foundation of our justice system, means that we do not give in to the bloodthirsty whims of the victims.

It means that we follow a system of established principles, which, as you know are colloquially referred to as "due process".

Surely you believe in due process, yes?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Death Penalty Opponents

MattTheSkywalker said:

Surely you believe in due process, yes?

Yes. He should be tried by a jury of his peers in a court of law.

The question here though is, is the death penalty appropriate if he is found guilty of murder in the 1st degree?

I can't think of a time when the death penalty is more appropriate than when murdering a child.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Death Penalty Opponents

ttlpkg said:


Why don't you ask the family of this girl who was snatched if it makes sense.

If that was my daughter and she was killed I still would not want the death penalty, next?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Death Penalty Opponents

ttlpkg said:


Yes. He should be tried by a jury of his peers in a court of law.

OK good. I thought you gave up on that when you suggested I ask the victims.



The question here though is, is the death penalty appropriate if he is found guilty of murder in the 1st degree?

I can't think of a time when the death penalty is more appropriate than when murdering a child.

Well, I already addressed my feelings on the inappropriateness of the DP in our current system.
 
ttlpkg said:
The bastard who abducted that young girl at the car wash. If he confesses, do you agree that he should be executed?

I think he should be exterminated in public, next week, and that it should be televised.

It would serve as a deterrent for would-be offenders and also provide justice.

Death Penalty in cases of Murder, Sexual asault with child or otherwise, R -A -OK- WITH ME!!

Hang that ass from the highest tree you can find.
 
Vectork39 said:
look at singapore crime rate, bring that shit to me man

Yeah even better, North Korea.

Bonehead.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Death Penalty Opponents

havoc said:


Does not work, never has, never will, next answer that makes no sense please

In the deterrent sense, it may not show any effect, but this is not the main reason for criminal punishment, justice is. If a murderer is killed, justice is served.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Death Penalty Opponents

havoc said:


If that was my daughter and she was killed I still would not want the death penalty, next?

You actually have any kids?

I do. If it was my child I would DEMAND the death penalty. I would clammor for it every chance I got. If the media came to me I would say it everytime. If given the chance I would pull the switch, push the button, filp the lever, or stab him to death with a dull spoon, however they want to do it nowadays.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Death Penalty Opponents

havoc said:


If that was my daughter and she was killed I still would not want the death penalty, next?

Well, if you had your way more Joseph Smiths would be killing daughters. Fortunately the death penalty exists as an option in our country.
 
Top Bottom