Should The Death Penalty Be Expanded To Apply To Crimes Other Than Murder? [Archive]

bayoubill

January 24th, 2009, 7:38 am

Solicitation of murder (hiring a hit-man)

Yeah, it only makes sense in this case to apply the death penalty to the person(s) who hired the murderer.

I'm tempted to say child molestation or rape of a child.
I think these people should be dead, but if you make it a capital crime, they have nothing to lose by killing the victim to eliminate the witness

Exactly my point when I argue against applying the death penalty for crimes of rape and child molestation.

waynevan

January 24th, 2009, 8:41 am

Solicitation of murder (hiring a hit-man)

I'm tempted to say child molestation or rape of a child.
I think these people should be dead, but if you make it a capital crime, they have nothing to lose by killing the victim to eliminate the witness.

Good point.

tha malcontent™

January 24th, 2009, 8:50 am

Well, the Religion of Peace and Love, Islam, and it's Member Nations, Believe that Homoseuality is Punishable by Death...

And to this Day, the Sympathy the Left has for the Islamists is Perplexing.

Oh yeah, Women who have been Raped should also be Executed.

الله أكبر

:)

peace...

chichimama

January 24th, 2009, 9:16 am

It should be abolished until judges and prosecutors take their jobs seriously. Too many innocent people on death row have been exonerated by DNA evidence.

CID_0687

January 24th, 2009, 9:26 am

Rapists and Child molesters deserve to die...nuke them bastards too.

tha malcontent™

January 24th, 2009, 9:27 am

It should be abolished until judges and prosecutors take their jobs seriously. Too many innocent people on death row have been exonerated by DNA evidence.

How Many Innoncent People have been Executed?...

:)

peace...

wasscullywabbit

January 24th, 2009, 10:43 am

CID_0687

January 24th, 2009, 10:53 am

At first, I was going to say no. It should only be used for murder crimes, but then I thought about that Fritzl guy who locked his daughter up for all those years in Austria and raped her all along. He basically took many years of her life away from her, as well as the childhood of his grandchildren/other children. Someone like that I might consider a change in the law for, if there were someone like him here in the US. The problem with that is for how long should someone be locked up before he should be considered for the death penalty? It probably would be too tricky to establish when the death penalty should apply. It is an interesting topic though. I do believe in capital punishment, but I like it to be lock stock and barrel. I don't like using the death penalty when it's just plainly based on eyewitness accounts, etc. It has to be definite, not hazy. Not when it comes to taking a life.
How long should it be?

In the 1800s and early 1900s folks were arrested on Monday, tried on Thursday and dead by Saturday...that sounds about right.

Now of course they didn't have the technology back then that we do now...there wasn't DNA tests, and things like that...but now there is and it will take a while longer...but, I say that once the person is convicted, and there is no doubt that it is the right person, there's no reason they should sit on death row for years...Just go ahead and get it over with.

NascarGirl2448

January 24th, 2009, 11:15 am

I'm tempted to say child molestation or rape of a child.
I think these people should be dead, but if you make it a capital crime, they have nothing to lose by killing the victim to eliminate the witness.

That is the only reason I would be against death for child molesters. If these scum know the government is going to kill them anyway, they will more than likely kill the child to eliminate a seemingly higher chance of being caught. Of course some just kill the child anyway, regardless.

Jíbaro

January 24th, 2009, 11:21 am

Your opinion on the subject?
Isn't treason already punishible by death?
May be Terrorists should also be treated as traitors.

JeffR

January 24th, 2009, 11:23 am

I picked "a few more."

Voter fraud for a Presidential election is one I was thinking about.

RickRhetoric

January 24th, 2009, 11:23 am

signcut

January 24th, 2009, 11:26 am

I'd also include serial rapists and child molesters. There is a difference between sexual offenders and sexual predators; while the typical sexual offender actually has a lower recidivism rate than most, the sexual predator will repeat until caught again.

mrclean

January 24th, 2009, 11:26 am

Capital punishment should be abolished. Most murderers get off on some technically anyway.

Instead of being sentenced to death, they should be sentenced to a "Devils Island" type environment someplace in northern Alaska and forced to dig for oil for the rest of their lives.

Something like that.

Give the offenders a good long time to think about what they did.

With execution, the punisment is over as soon as the plug is pulled.

Claymore

January 24th, 2009, 11:39 am

Include these,,,

Terrorism
Kidnapping
Child Molestation
Aggravated Rape
Illegal Drug Trafficking
Illegal Drug Manufacturing
Armed Robbery
Organized Criminal Activity/Conspiracy

tha malcontent™

January 24th, 2009, 1:48 pm

And again...

It should be abolished until judges and prosecutors take their jobs seriously. Too many innocent people on death row have been exonerated by DNA evidence.

How Many Innoncent People have been Executed?...

:)

peace...

JediMindTrick

January 24th, 2009, 2:33 pm

And again...

How Many Innoncent People have been Executed?...

:)

peace...

Countless before Fuhriman vs Georgia (do I really need to cite to you the many cases of blacks being lynched because a white accused them from the 60's and earlier?). Debatable since then but there a few cases such as the one against Ruben Cantu where even the prosecutor who convicted him now admits in light of new evidence that an innocent man got executed.

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

In short two guys got gunned down by two unknown assailants. One of the victims lived though. The investigation went cold and no one was arrested. Cantu's name did come up as did hundreds of others who lived in the town but there was nothing pointing to him as one of the shooters. Then a couple years later Cantu got into a bar fight and shot an off duty police officer. The investigation into that ruled that Cantu was acting in self defense and it was the drunk off duty cop who started everything. The cops were ****ed that Cantu got away with "shooting a cop" and almost immediately the investigation was reopened and focused on Cantu. The surviving victim though failed not once but twice to pick Cantu out of a lineup. A third time he finally did pick Cantu but says now that he was forced by police to pick Cantu. The second shooter was eventually arrested and admitted his role but said it wasn't Cantu either. Based on only the very shoddy lineup testimony of the surviving victim Cantu was prosecuted, convicted, and executed. Later a man came forward to the media admitting it was him but the authorities weren't willing to admit their mistake in killing an innocent man so it wasn't investigated. The police involved brag about how they couldn't get Cantu for shooting their brother but they got him on the murder.

I personally don't care a bit about the humanity argument against the death penalty. Nor the morality one. Nor the cruel and unusual punishment part of it. The only thing that matters to me is that if it exists we run the risk of innocent people being executed and because of that I'm against it.

bayoubill

January 24th, 2009, 2:48 pm

In a way, I don't give a rat's ass whether or not a convicted felon is given the death penalty.

That being said, I don’t support the death penalty.

It only serves to coarsen us as a civilized society,

and, as part of such coarsening, it gives cheap thrills to certain sick ****s

who like to fantasize about people being put to death.

Better that the convicted felon be put in prison for the rest of his life.

Perhaps the lowlife will find redemption after a while…

perhaps not…

Either way, let him remain there for the rest of his life away from society.

waynevan

January 24th, 2009, 4:31 pm

Include these,,,

Terrorism
Kidnapping
Child Molestation
Aggravated Rape
Illegal Drug Trafficking
Illegal Drug Manufacturing
Armed Robbery
Organized Criminal Activity/Conspiracy

Drug kingpins are eligible for the death penalty already.

noose4

January 24th, 2009, 4:37 pm

i am pro life so i oppose the death penalty for any crime, i prefer life imprisonment without parole.

waynevan

January 24th, 2009, 4:44 pm

i am pro life so i oppose the death penalty for any crime, i prefer life imprisonment without parole.

That is your choice but they are two seperate issues and one can without hypocrisy, be pro life and pro death penalty at the same time.

johnrocks

January 24th, 2009, 4:45 pm

noose4

January 24th, 2009, 4:48 pm

That is your choice but they are two seperate issues and one can without hypocrisy, be pro life and pro death penalty at the same time.

nope, if you are pro death penalty you can not say you are pro life, you can say you are anti abortion and pro death penalty but if you support state sanctioned killing of criminals you are not pro life.

ISYairio

January 24th, 2009, 4:50 pm

I picked Yes - Few More.

If we can't have the death penalty, then either put them away in something like a Supermax for life or drop them together on some barely subsistent island in the middle of the ocean (and record them :razz:).

LouC

January 24th, 2009, 4:51 pm

Your opinion on the subject?

I am an abolish capital punishment person.

I don't feel our judicial system is anywhere near error free enough to be placing that option before either a judge or jury for their decision.

johnrocks

January 24th, 2009, 4:51 pm

I picked Yes - Few More.

If we can't have the death penalty, then either put them away in solitary confinement for life or drop them together on some barely subsistent island in the middle of the ocean (and record them :razz:).

That's how Australia got it's start.:mrgreen:

LouC

January 24th, 2009, 4:53 pm

Interesting poll results so far.

ISYairio

January 24th, 2009, 4:54 pm

That's how Australia got it's start.:mrgreen:

Well lets hope they don't somehow learn how to make continent sized man made islands while they are there!

Or maybe we should. That might be a good thing? :think:

johnrocks

January 24th, 2009, 4:54 pm

Well lets hope they don't somehow learn how to make continent sized man made islands while they are there!

lol, where's that sig at?:cool:

ISYairio

January 24th, 2009, 5:05 pm

lol, where's that sig at?:cool:

I can't photoshop. :(

CID_0687

January 24th, 2009, 5:54 pm

I used to be pro death penalty but then saw so many released from prison that DNA has proven to be innocent that I got to thinking about that aspect and then I got thrown in a cell once for Contempt of a Dumbass Judge for about 6 hours and decided I had rather die than be in jail another day, let the guilty truly suffer a long and miserable existence in prison.
I'm fine with that.

But what about when the prisons become overpopulated?

Then we have to spend more tax dollars either expanding an existing prison or building another prison to facilitate.

joebrown

January 24th, 2009, 9:28 pm

It should be abolished until judges and prosecutors take their jobs seriously. Too many innocent people on death row have been exonerated by DNA evidence.

Not just prosecutors and judges, but the police investigators that provide the evidence to the prosecutor. They seem to think that they are correct in there thinking. That nothing else could have happened. No other person, no other excuse.
Thank god for DNA freeing the innocent.

JediMindTrick

January 24th, 2009, 11:23 pm

I'm fine with that.

But what about when the prisons become overpopulated?

Then we have to spend more tax dollars either expanding an existing prison or building another prison to facilitate.

The death penalty is irrelevant to prison overcrowding because the # of inmates on death row is tiny relative to the general population.

And the easiest way to solve overcrowding would be to do away with mandatory minimums and stop sending people to prison for simple possession of drugs.

waynevan

January 24th, 2009, 11:38 pm

nope, if you are pro death penalty you can not say you are pro life, you can say you are anti abortion and pro death penalty but if you support state sanctioned killing of criminals you are not pro life.

Anti abortion and pro life are the same thing.

TombRaiderBC

January 24th, 2009, 11:53 pm

I'd say child molesters and people who commit hate crimes. Both equally twisted and evil.

Claymore

January 24th, 2009, 11:58 pm

Drug kingpins are eligible for the death penalty already.

I want local pushers strung up from the lightpoles in the areas they sell that poision in.
Death to the pusher, treatment for the addict.

CID_0687

January 25th, 2009, 12:23 am

The death penalty is irrelevant to prison overcrowding because the # of inmates on death row is tiny relative to the general population.

And the easiest way to solve overcrowding would be to do away with mandatory minimums and stop sending people to prison for simple possession of drugs.
I agree with that but I'm also in favor of rapists and child molesters being executed, which will also help the overpopulation

khigh

January 25th, 2009, 12:34 am

i am pro life so i oppose the death penalty for any crime, i prefer life imprisonment without parole.

What about the likes of people like Timothy McVeigh? Or Ted Bundy? Or the Zodiac killer- if he was ever caught? How about the countless other serial killers? If they were convicted and evidence proved, without a doubt, that they were guilty (confession, dna), would you then pursue the death penalty?

Or with the likes of McVeigh, would you put them in the general population and let nature take her course? He was kept in solitary confinement or under the careful watch of guards every day until his execution, not for fear of what he might do, but because he would have been killed in the general population.

RayMan

January 25th, 2009, 12:35 am

Anti abortion and pro life are the same thing.

Yes, but pro-life doesn't stop at anti abortion.
--------------------------
pro-life

pro-life (not comparable)

(public policy, law, ethics) Of, pertaining to, or supportive of the right to life; believing that life should be protected from conception to natural death in almost all circumstances.

(public policy, law, ethics) Specifically opposed to the advocacy, practice, or legalization of abortion.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pro-life

dittoheadAZ

January 25th, 2009, 12:42 am

Your opinion on the subject?

It should be applied to murder, and "murderous crimes" (treason, attempted murder, etc.).

However, it shouldn't be applied to many other crimes where it's proposed.

For instance, a lot of folks want to have the death penalty for rape. If that was made the law, then every rape victim would also be a murder victim, because who will leave a victim behind to testify if the punishment is the same? You can substitute just about any other crime in there and have the same argument made.

tha malcontent™

January 25th, 2009, 12:48 am

Countless before Fuhriman vs Georgia (do I really need to cite to you the many cases of blacks being lynched because a white accused them from the 60's and earlier?). Debatable since then but there a few cases such as the one against Ruben Cantu where even the prosecutor who convicted him now admits in light of new evidence that an innocent man got executed.

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

In short two guys got gunned down by two unknown assailants. One of the victims lived though. The investigation went cold and no one was arrested. Cantu's name did come up as did hundreds of others who lived in the town but there was nothing pointing to him as one of the shooters. Then a couple years later Cantu got into a bar fight and shot an off duty police officer. The investigation into that ruled that Cantu was acting in self defense and it was the drunk off duty cop who started everything. The cops were ****ed that Cantu got away with "shooting a cop" and almost immediately the investigation was reopened and focused on Cantu. The surviving victim though failed not once but twice to pick Cantu out of a lineup. A third time he finally did pick Cantu but says now that he was forced by police to pick Cantu. The second shooter was eventually arrested and admitted his role but said it wasn't Cantu either. Based on only the very shoddy lineup testimony of the surviving victim Cantu was prosecuted, convicted, and executed. Later a man came forward to the media admitting it was him but the authorities weren't willing to admit their mistake in killing an innocent man so it wasn't investigated. The police involved brag about how they couldn't get Cantu for shooting their brother but they got him on the murder.

I personally don't care a bit about the humanity argument against the death penalty. Nor the morality one. Nor the cruel and unusual punishment part of it. The only thing that matters to me is that if it exists we run the risk of innocent people being executed and because of that I'm against it.

Digging up Lynchings eh?...

And of course that's an Exclusively Black Issue... :rolleyes:

Modern Day, JMT...

Give me Proof of an Execution that was NOT Just...

:)

peace...

CID_0687

January 25th, 2009, 12:49 am

It should be applied to murder, and "murderous crimes" (treason, attempted murder, etc.).

However, it shouldn't be applied to many other crimes where it's proposed.

For instance, a lot of folks want to have the death penalty for rape. If that was made the law, then every rape victim would also be a murder victim, because who will leave a victim behind to testify if the punishment is the same? You can substitute just about any other crime in there and have the same argument made.
Not all rapists are muderers and not all murderers are rapists.

And really, when someone is comitting a crime are they thinking about the consequences or getting their jollies?

dittoheadAZ

January 25th, 2009, 12:50 am

It should be abolished until judges and prosecutors take their jobs seriously. Too many innocent people on death row have been exonerated by DNA evidence.

A good point - but not to overturn the death penalty; it means that instead, the death penalty should only be enforced when there is either DNA evidence, or incontrovertible evidence (such as being caught literally red-handed in front of witnesses and recorded evidence, for example, shooting someone in a bank robbery and having it caught on tape). Without such evidence, life in prison with bread and water and the ACLU can get stuffed like a turkey.

dittoheadAZ

January 25th, 2009, 12:52 am

Not all rapists are muderers and not all murderers are rapists.

The point is that if the penalty is the same, then many rapists would BECOME murderers since there's no "incentive" not to.

CID_0687

January 25th, 2009, 12:58 am

The point is that if the penalty is the same, then many rapists would BECOME murderers since there's no "incentive" not to.
But my point is that you have to be wired a certain way to kill in cold blood.

Not all rapists or child molesters are gonna have it in them to kill the victim. While they have no problem killing a child's innocence it's just not in their makeup to take a life.

waynevan

January 25th, 2009, 7:37 am

Yes, but pro-life doesn't stop at anti abortion.
--------------------------
pro-life

pro-life (not comparable)

(public policy, law, ethics) Of, pertaining to, or supportive of the right to life; believing that life should be protected from conception to natural death in almost all circumstances.

(public policy, law, ethics) Specifically opposed to the advocacy, practice, or legalization of abortion.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pro-life

People are redefining it to fit their own needs and that is a lot of hooey. For decades it has meant one thing and one thing only, anti-abortion. You don't get to redefine the meaning of something to make yourself feel good.

BillyBobUSA

January 25th, 2009, 1:37 pm

Your opinion on the subject?

Treason, rape of a minor and serial child molestation.

noose4

January 25th, 2009, 1:45 pm

Anti abortion and pro life are the same thing.

if a person supports the death penalty they are not pro life.

noose4

January 25th, 2009, 1:47 pm

What about the likes of people like Timothy McVeigh? Or Ted Bundy? Or the Zodiac killer- if he was ever caught? How about the countless other serial killers? If they were convicted and evidence proved, without a doubt, that they were guilty (confession, dna), would you then pursue the death penalty?

Or with the likes of McVeigh, would you put them in the general population and let nature take her course? He was kept in solitary confinement or under the careful watch of guards every day until his execution, not for fear of what he might do, but because he would have been killed in the general population.

i am pro life, i oppose the death penalty, the above criminals would spend life in prison without chance of parole, in my opinion.

noose4

January 25th, 2009, 1:50 pm

People are redefining it to fit their own needs and that is a lot of hooey. For decades it has meant one thing and one thing only, anti-abortion. You don't get to redefine the meaning of something to make yourself feel good.

the catholic church has been a leader in the pro life movement for decades, and to the catholic church pro life has always been opposition to abortion and the death penalty.

BillyBobUSA

January 25th, 2009, 1:53 pm

the catholic church has been a leader in the pro life movement for decades, and to the catholic church pro life has always been opposition to abortion and the death penalty.

The Catholic church does not oppose the death penalty. Almost allt he preists are against it, to include JP2, but it is not doctrine to be against the death penalty.

Having an abortion, on the other hand, will get you excommunicated.

noose4

January 25th, 2009, 1:56 pm

The Catholic church does not oppose the death penalty. Almost allt he preists are against it, to include JP2, but it is not doctrine to be against the death penalty.

Having an abortion, on the other hand, will get you excommunicated.

if all the priests and the pope are against it then the church is against it.

BillyBobUSA

January 25th, 2009, 2:03 pm

if all the priests and the pope are against it then the church is against it.

:lol:

No, that is not true.

Just because the vast majority of the priests may hold an opinion, that does not make it church doctrine.

JediMindTrick

January 25th, 2009, 2:38 pm

Digging up Lynchings eh?...

And of course that's an Exclusively Black Issue... :rolleyes:

Modern Day, JMT...

Give me Proof of an Execution that was NOT Just...

:)

peace...

Typical Malcontent but anymore what I can expect from you since its your trademark to ignore facts. You focus on one little issue and ignore the other 95% of the post where I posted exactly such an execution. You'll ignore this too but here is a short list of the people who say the now executed Ruben Cantu is innocent: the prosecutor who tried him, the jury foreman who convicted him, the other confessed killer, the surviving victim, and quite possibly the actual killer. I'd say that is pretty much a slam dunk argument that Cantu's guilt is very much in question in this case.

JediMindTrick

January 25th, 2009, 2:54 pm

I agree with that but I'm also in favor of rapists and child molesters being executed, which will also help the overpopulation

How will you overcome the burden of proof problems? The numbers of people falsely convicted of child molestation / rape dwarf that of those falsely convicted of murder. DNA has helped free many of those falsely convicted but DNA is only available in a fraction of cases. Are you willing to execute them knowing for certain that some are innocent based on the simple law of averages?

As I said before in this thread, I don't care at all for the rights of the ones who are actually guilty. Take Joseph Duncan who videotaped himself molesting a child before killing the child. Not much doubt he did it and personally I don't care for a second what is done to him except that whatever is allowed to be done to him will inevitably be done to someone who is innocent. Life in prison without parole can be partially reversed by freeing the innocent person. Death, castration, and other such things often suggested cannot be reversed.

waynevan

January 25th, 2009, 3:39 pm

if a person supports the death penalty they are not pro life.

Again, the phrase pro-life was conceived strictly in the forum of abortion discussions as was the phrase pro-choice. Any other use of it is to abscond it for one's own purposes and inaccurate. You don't get to change the meaning of things to fit your own agenda.

People can be pro life and pro death penalty or pro life and anti death penalty or any combination thereof.

noose4

January 25th, 2009, 4:30 pm

Again, the phrase pro-life was conceived strictly in the forum of abortion discussions as was the phrase pro-choice. Any other use of it is to abscond it for one's own purposes and inaccurate. You don't get to change the meaning of things to fit your own agenda.

People can be pro life and pro death penalty or pro life and anti death penalty or any combination thereof.

if you are pro death you cant be pro life.

waynevan

January 25th, 2009, 5:03 pm

if you are pro death you cant be pro life.

And you can't erroneously tie the death penalty to the abortion debate, they aren't even in the same ballpark. One deals with innocent unborn humans and one deals with murderous evil humans. There is no connection between the two and it is pure folly to try and make one.

They are separate unrelated issues.

noose4

January 25th, 2009, 5:44 pm

And you can't erroneously tie the death penalty to the abortion debate, they aren't even in the same ballpark. One deals with innocent unborn humans and one deals with murderous evil humans. There is no connection between the two and it is pure folly to try and make one.

They are separate unrelated issues.

life is life, it is ludicrous to consider a person with a pro death penalty stance as being pro life.

Shella_Bella1966

January 25th, 2009, 6:33 pm

So does this mean all of you "Pro-Choicers" are also for your minor daughters going to an abortion clinic without your consent? And what happens when something goes horribley wrong, and you end up not only loseing what could have been your future Grand Child, But your Daughter as well. Yet, you had "No choice" at all in the matter.

CaptPops

January 25th, 2009, 9:45 pm

It should be applied to people who use one of those assualt type weapons in the commissions of a crime, weather or not if someone gets hurt or killed. Then maybe the Brady bunch will quit whining about taking them away from law abiding folks.

waynevan

January 25th, 2009, 10:46 pm

life is life, it is ludicrous to consider a person with a pro death penalty stance as being pro life.

What is ludicrous is you trying to change the long accepted meaning of the phrase. Have fun with your little delusion.

tha malcontent™

January 25th, 2009, 11:22 pm

Typical Malcontent but anymore what I can expect from you since its your trademark to ignore facts. You focus on one little issue and ignore the other 95% of the post where I posted exactly such an execution. You'll ignore this too but here is a short list of the people who say the now executed Ruben Cantu is innocent: the prosecutor who tried him, the jury foreman who convicted him, the other confessed killer, the surviving victim, and quite possibly the actual killer. I'd say that is pretty much a slam dunk argument that Cantu's guilt is very much in question in this case.

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

"Cast Doubt"...

So you have Proven that an Innoncent Man was Executed, JMT?...

Better get a Letter to Wiki so they can Adjust their Page.

:)

peace...

BillyBobUSA

January 25th, 2009, 11:38 pm

if you are pro death you cant be pro life.

So a person who kills to defend an innocent person is not prolife?

bsleplatt

January 25th, 2009, 11:51 pm

BillyBobUSA

January 25th, 2009, 11:59 pm

I understand what takes people to be passionate about the death penalty both pro- and against-. But the taking of one life, will never bring back another person. Do I think there are people who will never stop committing thier types of crime. yes. We should be sure those people are never allowed to be put inthe general population of our country. but killing them, does not make up for the murder of those they killed.

Whoever said it would bring anyone back?

Classic 'Straw Man' argument if there ever was one.

The reasons for having the death penalty, IMO, are:

1. The sacredness of *innocent* life. If we punish people in scale for the crimes committed then there is only one just punishment for killing the innocent and that is to take the life of the murderer.

It is a reckoning, not a silly attempt to 'bring back' the victim.

2. It helps maintain the state as the arbiter of justice. While you may be happy enough to have the murders of any of your family sent to prison for life, *I* and many others like me would not. I would accept nothing less than the execution of the murderer.

If the state fails to perform its role as the arbiter of justice in these cases then people will extract that justice by other means.

And none of us want that.

3. No matter what libruls claim we all know that the death penalty is a deterent for a great many people who would commit murder otherwise. Some are not detered, that is true, but if even one is detered then it is worth it.

4. An executed murderer will never murder again.

bsleplatt

January 26th, 2009, 12:03 am

only studies show that having the death penalty in our current system...does not work as a deterrent for criminals. REckoning is not going to change what has happened.

and again, expecting death for those who hurt your family....will not bring your family member back. It will nto make you feel better abut them being dead. It will not even ease your hurt.

And check my post...not a liberal. But I do not believe in the death penalty. I am pro-life across the board.

A murder in jail, will never kill another human being either...except maybe another prisioner./

Claymore

January 26th, 2009, 12:18 am

AdamMorse

January 26th, 2009, 12:22 am

executed murders never kill again.
Executed rapists never rape again.
Executed drug dealers never poision again.
Executed terrorist never attack the innocent again.
Executed molesters never molest again.

+1

bsleplatt

January 26th, 2009, 12:31 am

Executed murders never kill again.
Executed rapists never rape again.
Executed drug dealers never poision again.
Executed terrorist never attack the innocent again.
Executed molesters never molest again.

And killing those ppl does not stop those crimes from happening by other people, it doesnt "resolve" anything or those hat the crime happened to, and it doesnt change anything....excepting that we as a society can be as bloodthirsty as those we are so anxious to kill.

BillBrown

January 26th, 2009, 12:44 am

AdamMorse

January 26th, 2009, 12:52 am

And killing those ppl does not stop those crimes from happening by other people, it doesnt "resolve" anything or those hat the crime happened to, and it doesnt change anything....excepting that we as a society can be as bloodthirsty as those we are so anxious to kill.

But it does explicitly say that we are not willing to tolerate these crimes. And we DO remove the worst of society with executions.

Can you honestly say that we are not already a bloodthirsty society? We tolerate and even exemplify drivebys, serial killers, serial rapists, gangs, drug kingpins, etc. Name the crime, and we love it, according to popular culture.

I am getting sick of discovering in our media that some terrible new crime is being comitted and that it will get days and weeks of play. If we gave the same kind of coverage to the fact that the perp gets a death sentence, how long do you really think that crime would become less of an occupation and more of an incident type of occurence?

bsleplatt

January 26th, 2009, 1:05 am

It certainly does keep that crime from happening to other people.

If a murderer is executed, do you think he will ever kill anyone else?

It stops that person from committing that crime...it does not stop the crime from happening again.

bsleplatt

January 26th, 2009, 1:06 am

But it does explicitly say that we are not willing to tolerate these crimes. And we DO remove the worst of society with executions.

Can you honestly say that we are not already a bloodthirsty society? We tolerate and even exemplify drivebys, serial killers, serial rapists, gangs, drug kingpins, etc. Name the crime, and we love it, according to popular culture.

I am getting sick of discovering in our media that some terrible new crime is being comitted and that it will get days and weeks of play. If we gave the same kind of coverage to the fact that the perp gets a death sentence, how long do you really think that crime would become less of an occupation and more of an incident type of occurence?

our society hasa lot of faults. As i said, Our CURRENT sysem of execution does not act as a deterrent. It takes years to kill a prisioner. And it cost more to kill them, then to allow the to live in jail. Between the appeals process and special housing, etc..

But killing off criminals...without the checks and balances, does not ensure a safer society either. It justmeans we are more likely of killing the wrong person.

BillBrown

January 26th, 2009, 1:29 am

It stops that person from committing that crime...it does not stop the crime from happening again.

It stops it from happening again at the hand of the person executed.
It is an absolute deterrent in his case.

Is that not of value?

AdamMorse

January 26th, 2009, 1:37 am

It stops that person from committing that crime...it does not stop the crime from happening again.

Given that much crime is committed by repeat offenders, it is a means to stop crime committed by that offender. We cannot possibly stop all crime, only punish any crime committed. Hence, the death PENALTY.

AdamMorse

January 26th, 2009, 1:46 am

our society hasa lot of faults. As i said, Our CURRENT sysem of execution does not act as a deterrent.

I never said that the death penalty is a deterrent. I said it stops the perpetrator from committing another crime. It is a punishment, not a rehabilitation.

It takes years to kill a prisioner. And it cost more to kill them, then to allow the to live in jail. Between the appeals process and special housing, etc..

That is only because of the ACLU and their ilk. How may appeals do we need after a man is convicted after a fair trial? He was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt already.

But killing off criminals...without the checks and balances, does not ensure a safer society either. It justmeans we are more likely of killing the wrong person.

Let me take your words and change them just slightly:

"But killing off the innocents of civilized society...without the checks and balances, does not insure a safer society". Do you see what I am getting at? The justice system is to insure the safety of the innocent and law abiding of society. A man that is convicted in our justice system is now considered to be NOT among the innocent. The trial has met a reasonable standard by our laws. We are killing truly innocent people by trying to give an anal exam to whether a CONVICTED murderer is innocent. That is unacceptable.

Claymore

January 26th, 2009, 2:13 am

Currently capital punishment has lost it's value as a deterent to crimes by the fact that it is used so infrequently and not in a timely manner.
Execute more vermin and demonstrate a resolve to keep executing vermin and soon the vermin problem comes under control.

AdamMorse

January 26th, 2009, 3:20 am

Drug kingpins
Child Molesters
Serial Rapists
Computer hackers
Computer virus writers/uploaders
Identity thieves
Scientists that believe in Global Warming
Liberal "Journalists"

While a case may be made for liberals in general, I think that this is just a genetic syndrome and should be pursued with stem cell research rather than a straightforward execution. Just my Modest Proposal.

Groundhog

January 26th, 2009, 5:19 am

I wouldn't mind applying the death penalty for repeat gang graffti/tagging offenders. To me they are one rung lower than a rapist/murderer.

Panhead0422

January 26th, 2009, 6:52 am

Isn't treason already punishible by death?
May be Terrorists should also be treated as traitors.

Neither charge would be applicable to a terrorist unless that terrorist was a U.S. citizen who supported a foreign government to overthrow the U.S. Government or actually took up arms to overthrow our government.

noose4

January 26th, 2009, 8:48 am

What is ludicrous is you trying to change the long accepted meaning of the phrase. Have fun with your little delusion.

have fun believing you can be pro putting people to death yet consider yourself pro life.

noose4

January 26th, 2009, 8:49 am

So a person who kills to defend an innocent person is not prolife?

state sanctioned capital punishment is not the same as defending yourself, once in custody the threat from the criminal against innocents is negated.

chichimama

January 26th, 2009, 9:10 am

... That is only because of the ACLU and their ilk. How may appeals do we need after a man is convicted after a fair trial? He was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt already...

There is no such thing as a fair trial. Too many jurors let their prejudices interfere with the process of deciding guilt or innocence.

You may want to sit in on a jury selection process at your local court house one day. You'll see prospective jurors being interviewed and assuming the accused is guilty without even hearing all the facts. It's unbelievable.

JediMindTrick

January 26th, 2009, 12:05 pm

That is only because of the ACLU and their ilk. How may appeals do we need after a man is convicted after a fair trial? He was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt already.

More than what we have considering there are documented cases where people have been executed despite the following disturbing facts occurring in some of them:

1) The defense lawyer, a public defender, showed up drunk nearly every day to the trial and even passed out at one point.

2) The lawyer repeatedly fell asleep

3) The lawyer had never tried a criminal case in his life. He was forced to take a pro bono case by the judge despite the fact he was a tax lawyer.

These things have actually all happened individually and more than once yet despite that the appeals process, which is basically a big rubber stamp, found the defendant received adequate counsel and a fair trial. Apparently the only requirement for adequate counsel is a heartbeat.

AdamMorse

January 26th, 2009, 2:08 pm

There is no such thing as a fair trial. Too many jurors let their prejudices interfere with the process of deciding guilt or innocence.

There can be a certain standard of fairness, which I believe our system meets. At least any single prejudice can be either negated or watered down by the fact that there are twelve jurors, instead of trial by a single judge. To be realistic, the judicial system is only an instrument of man, and subject to his weaknesses. However, I think the US judicial system is far fairer than all others.

You may want to sit in on a jury selection process at your local court house one day. You'll see prospective jurors being interviewed and assuming the accused is guilty without even hearing all the facts. It's unbelievable.

Yeah, and there are other juries that are convinced the defendant is innocent.

AdamMorse

January 26th, 2009, 2:10 pm

More than what we have considering there are documented cases where people have been executed despite the following disturbing facts occurring in some of them:

1) The defense lawyer, a public defender, showed up drunk nearly every day to the trial and even passed out at one point.

2) The lawyer repeatedly fell asleep

3) The lawyer had never tried a criminal case in his life. He was forced to take a pro bono case by the judge despite the fact he was a tax lawyer.

These things have actually all happened individually and more than once yet despite that the appeals process, which is basically a big rubber stamp, found the defendant received adequate counsel and a fair trial. Apparently the only requirement for adequate counsel is a heartbeat.

Did these findings come from a majority of cases or a small minority? My bet is that these were the small minority. In the overwhelming majority of cases, I bet that the trial is totally on the up-and-up and that the right person was convicted.

AdamMorse

January 26th, 2009, 2:15 pm

have fun believing you can be pro putting people to death yet consider yourself pro life.

I am extremely pro-life, yet favor capital punishment. This is because those that are to be executed have proven themselves unable to live in society and are not a useful part of it. An unborn child has done no such thing and is deserving of our protection, as are the innocent and law-abiding citizens.

noose4

January 26th, 2009, 2:16 pm

I am extremely pro-life, yet favor capital punishment. This is because those that are to be executed have proven themselves unable to live in society and are not a useful part of it. An unborn child has done no such thing and is deserving of our protection, as are the innocent and law-abiding citizens.

then you are not pro life.

Vic Daring

January 26th, 2009, 2:54 pm

stoked

January 26th, 2009, 3:38 pm

Bernie Madoff should get the death penalty for one.

tha malcontent™

January 26th, 2009, 3:39 pm

then you are not pro life.

Those who are Executed in this Country are given a Trial, and Appeals before they are Executed by Law.

The Innoncent Unborn Life that has a Heartbeat and a Nervous System, but is to Burdensome for Some Women, is NOT Given a Trial before they are Murdered for Convenience.

That is the Distinction between being Pro-Life and Pro-Death Penalty.

But you Knew this.

:)

peace...

tha malcontent™

January 26th, 2009, 3:40 pm

Bernie Madoff should get the death penalty for one.

He should be Found Guilty of Something First...

:)

peace...

tha malcontent™

January 26th, 2009, 3:41 pm

Since 1976, when capital punishment was re-established in the U.S., there have been roughly 1,000 executions.

Since DNA evidence came into use in the late 80s, there have been 200-plus death penalty cases overturned, based on that area of evidence alone.

There's some kind of probability formula that could give you a fairly accurate estimate of how many people have been wrongly executed in that time.

At that Time...

And we can Assume...

But we are NOT doing that NOW... Correct?...

DNA Evidence is Exhonerating People, and those People are NOT Getting Executed.

:)

peace...

noose4

January 26th, 2009, 3:41 pm

Those who are Executed in this Country are given a Trial, and Appeals before they are Executed by Law.

The Innoncent Unborn Life that has a Heartbeat and a Nervous System, but is to Burdensome for Some Women, is NOT Given a Trial before they are Murdered for Convenience.

That is the Distinction between being Pro-Life and Pro-Death Penalty.

But you Knew this.

:)

peace...

nope, pro life is being in favor of all life not just some, you cant be pro DEATH penalty and say you are pro LIFE.

tha malcontent™

January 26th, 2009, 3:45 pm

nope, pro life is being in favor of all life not just some, you cant be pro DEATH penalty and say you are pro LIFE.

Sure can... And you, by your Own Standard are Pro-Death in your Support of Barry's Killing of Civilians.

:)

peace...

Vic Daring

January 26th, 2009, 4:02 pm

At that Time...

And we can Assume...

But we are NOT doing that NOW... Correct?...

DNA Evidence is Exhonerating People, and those People are NOT Getting Executed.

:)

peace...

DNA evidence is available in a small minority of cases.

noose4

January 26th, 2009, 4:08 pm

Sure can... And you, by your Own Standard are Pro-Death in your Support of Barry's Killing of Civilians.

:)

peace...

warfare is different from criminal prosecution, attacking free range al quaeda is different from putting an apprehended criminal to death.

waynevan

January 26th, 2009, 4:54 pm

have fun believing you can be pro putting people to death yet consider yourself pro life.

I did not say I was pro life, or pro choice for that matter. I do not take part in actual abortion discussions and have never aired my views on it here, nor have I in this discussion. I think it is the most divisive issue in America today and I will not contribute to that. I have been stating what I believe can and cannot exist and your error in tying two unrelated issues together.

I make no bones however, about supporting the death penalty.

JediMindTrick

January 26th, 2009, 5:12 pm

DNA evidence is available in a small minority of cases.

Yep.

And DNA is almost never available in armed robberies, drive by shootings, and other crimes with guns where the murder happens from a distance.

And even when DNA is available it often doesn't prove anything. Woman gets murdered and they find her husbands DNA in her - big deal because they may have had consensual sex shortly before the murder. It neither proves his guilt nor proves his innocence.

ArmyMAJretired

January 26th, 2009, 5:24 pm

Yes, stupid polls and parking offenses! Good way to thin the gene pool.

AdamMorse

January 26th, 2009, 7:38 pm

then you are not pro life.

Yes, I am. Because I favor the death penalty, I am for keeping as many innocents from the acts of the most wretched scum of society. Ergo, the net overall effect is to save lives, a very pro life position.

noose4

January 26th, 2009, 8:00 pm

Yes, I am. Because I favor the death penalty, I am for keeping as many innocents from the acts of the most wretched scum of society. Ergo, the net overall effect is to save lives, a very pro life position.

nope, once a criminal is apprehended their threat to the public is negated, it is ludicrous to state being pro life while also stating being pro death penalty.

Gray

January 26th, 2009, 8:06 pm

What other crimes would you apply the death penalty to?

Attempted Murder.

CaptPops

January 26th, 2009, 8:50 pm

CaptPops

January 26th, 2009, 9:00 pm

DNA evidence is available in a small minority of cases.

In what cases? In all cases, or just murder and rape?

JediMindTrick

January 26th, 2009, 9:54 pm

Did these findings come from a majority of cases or a small minority? My bet is that these were the small minority. In the overwhelming majority of cases, I bet that the trial is totally on the up-and-up and that the right person was convicted.

I'll agree that probably 98% of the time they get the right guy. I'm simply not willing to kill a couple of innocent people out of every hundred in order to have the death penalty.

uncledoom

January 26th, 2009, 11:31 pm

I would like to see a good ol' fashioned ass kicking be applied for many crimes...

Pudge

January 27th, 2009, 1:08 am

How Many Innoncent People have been Executed?...

:)

peace...

Just one would be too many, and I am sure there has been at least a handful. I'm sure someone's posted it in this thread.

Pudge

January 27th, 2009, 1:10 am

The problem I have with complete abolition is that if the DP is removed from the table for murder, then there's nothing that they can use to get a perp to plea out to life without parole. You'll see more murder suspects chancing it with the court, which will create more of a backlog of cases. What do they have to lose? They get to live no matter what while their victim does not.

So, keep it for murder, and only when there is no doubt of guilt, such as the case of John Couey.

Bolshevik Hunter

January 27th, 2009, 2:17 am

How about that bottomfeeder Merdoff? I think they should drown guys like that. Of course, not before they beat him to near death with a rubber hose dipped in Olive Oil. ~BH

PaleoPaul

January 27th, 2009, 2:20 am

I'm neutral on this.

I generally have a "Fry 'Em" attitude, especially for the John Coueys of the world.

But there's the "innocents get mixed up in the system" argument as well.

I'm going to err on the side of justice, but still maintain my sense of neutrality and skepticism.

ConstitutionHugger

January 27th, 2009, 11:26 am

I think in the case of rape, and the heinous murders (more than shooting in the head) they should have to suffer a little more than just a little needle poke before they die. Personally I would like to see them tortured, which is what i'd do if somebody did that to my wife and i got to them b4 the police, But Since Cruel and unusual punishment is prohibited by the Constitution I would like to see the "justice system" punish them right up to the point before it becomes Cruel and Unusual.

Talk2Bill

January 27th, 2009, 11:44 am

Yes, but the Supreme Court ruled that it can only be used in murder cases.
Kennedy v Louisiana.

This applies to states. There are a few non-murder federal crimes that have the death penalty- treason and espionage, for example.

the UCMJ also has it as an option for rape. (or at least did when i was in the Army)

captusa

January 27th, 2009, 3:07 pm

I think there should be the death penalty for attempted murder.
The way it is now we are rewarding failure.

tha malcontent™

January 27th, 2009, 3:49 pm

Just one would be too many, and I am sure there has been at least a handful. I'm sure someone's posted it in this thread.

No... Using that Standard, then ALL War is Unjust...

The System is Imperfect, but I don't Believe that Today, in America, you will see an Innoncent Person Executed.

It may or may Not have Happened in the Past, but I don't Believe it would Today.

And as Long as Prison is More Comfy than the Ghetto, Prison is NOT an Alternative.

:)

peace...

tha malcontent™

January 27th, 2009, 3:50 pm

I think there should be the death penalty for attempted murder.
The way it is now we are rewarding failure.

:))

:clap:

:)

peace...

jimjames418

January 27th, 2009, 4:34 pm

Should The Death Penalty Be Expanded To Apply To Crimes Other Than Murder?
It should appply for any sex crime to children under the age of 14. :twisted:

ConstitutionHugger

January 27th, 2009, 4:42 pm

It should appply for any sex crime to children under the age of 14. :twisted:

Any sex crime other than Statutory rape. Which from what I've seen, Most cases are from a ****ed off parent who found out that their Innocent little angel isn't so innocent anymore. And then It should be a case by case basis where the DP is an option

thr3

January 27th, 2009, 4:56 pm

Rapists and Child molesters deserve to die...nuke them bastards too.

Using nuclear weapons on them may be a tad over the top given the fall out etc.

captusa

January 27th, 2009, 6:52 pm

:))

:clap:

:)

peace...

A lower penalty for attempted murder gives the message, "Do better next time" or "If at first..."

AdamMorse

January 27th, 2009, 8:14 pm

nope, once a criminal is apprehended their threat to the public is negated, it is ludicrous to state being pro life while also stating being pro death penalty.

As long as a criminal of this nature is alive, he is still a threat. I stand by my point.

ChaosControl

January 27th, 2009, 8:46 pm

Death is too easy on these scumbags, but it is better than letting them watch cable tv in their "prison cell."

Maybe if prison was like it should be, like it is in some third world nations, maybe then I might oppose the death penalty. But until then, yeah I say expand it to rapists/child molesters.

Bolshevik Hunter

January 27th, 2009, 8:59 pm

I say solitary for 10 years prior to being executed. I mean solitary, no tv, no books and absolutely no physical contact with any other humanbeing. I assure you, solitary will drive anyone mad, and will teach them something about life. Then, hang them. I am talking about child killers, throw Molesters in as well in my World, and intentional crule murder. ~BH

The Founders Intent

January 27th, 2009, 9:00 pm

How Many Innoncent People have been Executed?...

:)

peace...
I think everyone of them said they didn't do it. :twisted:

captusa

January 27th, 2009, 11:56 pm

I think everyone of them said they didn't do it. :twisted:

How many innocent persons who were on death row have been proved not guilty by DNA evidence ?
How many people were convicted on false lab reports by the L.A. police lab ?(They were caught "fixing" evidence.

BillyBobUSA

January 28th, 2009, 2:08 am

Neither charge would be applicable to a terrorist unless that terrorist was a U.S. citizen who supported a foreign government to overthrow the U.S. Government or actually took up arms to overthrow our government.

Military tribunals have been executing partisans, sabateurs and assassins for millenia and Western nations have done this as recently as World War II.

If we would just shoot these damned terrorists we wouldnt be having so much BS about Gitmo.

BillyBobUSA

January 28th, 2009, 2:08 am

How many innocent persons who were on death row have been proved not guilty by DNA evidence ?
How many people were convicted on false lab reports by the L.A. police lab ?(They were caught "fixing" evidence.

Arent you, the one asserting this point, supposed to have the answers to the questions you are asking?

sircharliebrown

January 28th, 2009, 2:46 am

It should appply for any sex crime to children under the age of 14. :twisted:

Purely on emotion, I would agree with this. However, most of the time when a child of this age is molested, it is done by a family member - more specifically the father. The "stranger" cases are actually rare, compared to those that happen at the hands of a family member. If a child who has been molested by his/her father then has to live with knowing their father was put to death because of it, you've only compounded the trauma. So for me, it's not a matter of "saving the molester's life", but saving the child from further trauma.

JediMindTrick

January 28th, 2009, 4:55 am

Purely on emotion, I would agree with this. However, most of the time when a child of this age is molested, it is done by a family member - more specifically the father. The "stranger" cases are actually rare, compared to those that happen at the hands of a family member. If a child who has been molested by his/her father then has to live with knowing their father was put to death because of it, you've only compounded the trauma. So for me, it's not a matter of "saving the molester's life", but saving the child from further trauma.

True and all too often the offender is under 14 as well. Its sadly common for kids ages 10-14 to copy molestation done on them to kids ages 4-8. While I have no stats in front of me my impression from experience is that we see about three times as many juvenile on child offenses as we do adult on child offenses.

Cav Scout

January 28th, 2009, 6:49 am

Yes.

tha malcontent™

January 28th, 2009, 8:08 am

I think everyone of them said they didn't do it. :twisted:

And I am Sure they are on Death Row because of this Singular Conviction...

I am Sure there was no History of Crime or other Murders or Rapes...

That's what the Murdering, Rapist Apologists would have you Believe...

Average Citizen like yourself was Framed by the Corrupt and Racist Police, and a Hardworking, No Criminal Record having Average Joe is on Death Row.

If my Memory Serves me, there was an Inmate on Death Row in Texas that the Left was Crying Crocodile Tears for, and they said he wasn't Guilty of the Murder he was Accused of...

I Researched it...

That wasn't his only Murder.

They didn't Even Argue about the others, it was the One that he was being Executed for that was the One they had Issue with.

It's NOT about Innoncent People being Executed...

It's about Not Standards...

No Morals...

No Laws.

Eventually, they Expose themselves on almost EVERY Subject.

The Deterioration of this Society.

Some of it is Based in Misplaced Guilt, and some of it in Mental Illness, which I Believe can be Observed in Much of what the Left does and Stands for.

They are Functional Mental Cases, and Occassionally they Kill their Wife and Children because they Lost their Job...

People who are Easily Motivated Emotionally like that Used to NOT be Coddled and Excused and Trusted with Meds that Keep them Safe, only One Day to NOT Take those Meds, Watch too Much "The Sky is Falling" "Free Press" Coverage Designed to Make Barry Look the Saviour, and they Snap.

Sorry to go Off on a Tangent, but if you Lose your Job and you Kill yourself, you are a Scumbag...

If you Kill your Family in the Process, you have a Special Place in Hell.

Now Please, Someone Entertain me with some Liberal Excuses or Blame Laying on why these *****-Bags are somehow Victims and Not Murderers.

:)

peace...

tha malcontent™

January 28th, 2009, 2:03 pm

Interesting...

:)

peace...

tha malcontent™

January 28th, 2009, 3:48 pm

Can someone give me an Example of a Non-Violent, Non-Previously Convicted or Admited Violent Criminal, who is on Death Row and Wrongly Accused?...

:)

peace...

ConstitutionHugger

January 28th, 2009, 3:53 pm

And I am Sure they are on Death Row because of this Singular Conviction...

I am Sure there was no History of Crime or other Murders or Rapes...

That's what the Murdering, Rapist Apologists would have you Believe...

Average Citizen like yourself was Framed by the Corrupt and Racist Police, and a Hardworking, No Criminal Record having Average Joe is on Death Row.

If my Memory Serves me, there was an Inmate on Death Row in Texas that the Left was Crying Crocodile Tears for, and they said he wasn't Guilty of the Murder he was Accused of...

I Researched it...

That wasn't his only Murder.

They didn't Even Argue about the others, it was the One that he was being Executed for that was the One they had Issue with.

It's NOT about Innoncent People being Executed...

It's about Not Standards...

No Morals...

No Laws.

Eventually, they Expose themselves on almost EVERY Subject.

The Deterioration of this Society.

Some of it is Based in Misplaced Guilt, and some of it in Mental Illness, which I Believe can be Observed in Much of what the Left does and Stands for.

They are Functional Mental Cases, and Occassionally they Kill their Wife and Children because they Lost their Job...

People who are Easily Motivated Emotionally like that Used to NOT be Coddled and Excused and Trusted with Meds that Keep them Safe, only One Day to NOT Take those Meds, Watch too Much "The Sky is Falling" "Free Press" Coverage Designed to Make Barry Look the Saviour, and they Snap.

Sorry to go Off on a Tangent, but if you Lose your Job and you Kill yourself, you are a Scumbag...

If you Kill your Family in the Process, you have a Special Place in Hell.

Now Please, Someone Entertain me with some Liberal Excuses or Blame Laying on why these *****-Bags are somehow Victims and Not Murderers.

:)

peace...

OOO Nice Post I like It!!!
Very well put
Excellent Post

tha malcontent™

January 28th, 2009, 3:55 pm

OOO Nice Quote I like It!!!
Very well put
Excellent Post

Shanks... Simply Observing...

:)

peace...

Jíbaro

January 28th, 2009, 3:57 pm

http://thepeoplescube.com/working/PlayingCards/images/PeoplesCube.com_Cards_23.gif

JediMindTrick

January 28th, 2009, 8:30 pm

Can someone give me an Example of a Non-Violent, Non-Previously Convicted or Admited Violent Criminal, who is on Death Row and Wrongly Accused?...

:)

peace...

I'm still awaiting you to comment on Ruben Cantu. You demanded I give an example of an innocent person who was executed and I gave you one where even the prosecutor who convicted him now admits a horrible mistake was made and an innocent man was executed. Yet in your typical fashion as you always do when your losing an argument you ignore the point entirely. And Cantu had no other murders on his rap sheet so your going to fail on that point as well.

Cav Scout

January 28th, 2009, 11:31 pm

I'm still awaiting you to comment on Ruben Cantu. You demanded I give an example of an innocent person who was executed and I gave you one where even the prosecutor who convicted him now admits a horrible mistake was made and an innocent man was executed. Yet in your typical fashion as you always do when your losing an argument you ignore the point entirely. And Cantu had no other murders on his rap sheet so your going to fail on that point as well.

Thats sad.
Mistakes happen.

JediMindTrick

January 28th, 2009, 11:49 pm

Thats sad.
Mistakes happen.

Yes mistakes absolutely do happen and that is exactly why we should never use a punishment that 100% irreversible. If Cantu had gotten life without parole instead he could be released. Sure it would suck for him to lose ten to fifteen years of his life in prison but its better than being dead.

Again, I don't care about the humanity argument. Take Joseph Duncan for instance, he is guilty of killing numerous kids and there is no doubt as he videotaped himself doing it. If I could guarantee that every case was as clear cut as Duncans I'd be for the death penalty but unfortunately when you leave the DP on the table its going to end up being used in cases like Cantus where the evidence is flimsy or fabricated.

Cav Scout

January 29th, 2009, 4:36 am

Yes mistakes absolutely do happen and that is exactly why we should never use a punishment that 100% irreversible. If Cantu had gotten life without parole instead he could be released. Sure it would suck for him to lose ten to fifteen years of his life in prison but its better than being dead.

Again, I don't care about the humanity argument. Take Joseph Duncan for instance, he is guilty of killing numerous kids and there is no doubt as he videotaped himself doing it. If I could guarantee that every case was as clear cut as Duncans I'd be for the death penalty but unfortunately when you leave the DP on the table its going to end up being used in cases like Cantus where the evidence is flimsy or fabricated.

I do not buy it. Life is not fair. At least I do not remember anyone popping out of the sky telling me that it was supposed to be.

Yep I would love for our justice system to be perfect, that would be awesome. It is not. That however is not an excuse to feed house and provide for scum bags that should otherwise be put out of our misery.

Rapist, Pedophiles, Capitol Murder, Three time loosers of violent crimes, should not grace this earth once convicted.

tha malcontent™

January 29th, 2009, 11:43 am

tha malcontent™

January 29th, 2009, 2:04 pm

And even if he is Proven Innocent at some Time, I am NOT for Eliminating Laws because Nothing is Perfect.

Until he is Acutally Proven to have been Innoncent by a Court, I do NOT Accept the Assertion that he is as Fact.

Now, give me some other Examples of Angels on Death Row.

:)

peace...

AdamMorse

January 30th, 2009, 2:10 am

I do not buy it. Life is not fair. At least I do not remember anyone popping out of the sky telling me that it was supposed to be.

Yep I would love for our justice system to be perfect, that would be awesome. It is not. That however is not an excuse to feed house and provide for scum bags that should otherwise be put out of our misery.

Rapist, Pedophiles, Capitol Murder, Three time loosers of violent crimes, should not grace this earth once convicted.

Bravo. This is an excellent post.

It would seem that the left want to cry for one scumbag that might be innocent (aren't they all?) on death row, yet never cry for the innocent victims that have never recieved a trial and never had a chance for "reversal" of the crime. They want to extend this "right" to all convicted criminals on death row? No sense of proportion whatsoever.

JediMindTrick

January 30th, 2009, 2:13 am

Bravo. This is an excellent post.

It would seem that the left want to cry for one scumbag that might be innocent (aren't they all?) on death row, yet never cry for the innocent victims that have never recieved a trial and never had a chance for "reversal" of the crime. They want to extend this "right" to all convicted criminals on death row? No sense of proportion whatsoever.

:rolleyes:

bayoubill

September 21st, 2009, 6:25 am

bump...

Panhead0422

September 21st, 2009, 6:56 am

It should be abolished until judges and prosecutors take their jobs seriously. Too many innocent people on death row have been exonerated by DNA evidence.

Well a lot of the people on death row that "have been exonerated" were convicted BEFORE DNA evidence was even possible. Most of the currently accepted DNA evidence has been possible for only about the last ten years, the average time on death row is fifteen to eighteen years prior to execution. That is kind of like "rolling the clock back" to the time Fingerprint evidence was new and declaring that the people on deathrow were innocent because we just found out about fingerprints.
I am not saying that we should still execute the people on deathrow who have DNA evidence clear them of the crime, they should go free unless they were convicted of other separate crimes.
I am saying that using a lack of DNA evidence availability at the time of conviction to claim the death penalty is wrong is in itself wrong.

StoneScratcher

September 21st, 2009, 8:15 am

Your opinion on the subject?

I don't believe in the death penalty from conception to old age.

There is one thing I do wish would be used as a deterrent to the rape of a child. It is less harsh than death, and less restrictive than a life-sentence in prison.

Castration. Just cut them off and be done with it.

I am serious.

Gray

September 21st, 2009, 8:38 am

Your opinion on the subject?

I support the death penalty as it is.

No change except that maybe if there are more than two witnesses then you only get one fast appeal then executed.

CID_0687

September 21st, 2009, 8:50 am

I don't believe in the death penalty from conception to old age.

There is one thing I do wish would be used as a deterrent to the rape of a child. It is less harsh than death, and less restrictive than a life-sentence in prison.

Castration. Just cut them off and be done with it.

I am serious.
A castrated rapist would just find another way to abuse their victims...it's more about the power it gives them over the person that it is about getting off. The only thing that can be done to correct it is to kill them.

signcut

September 21st, 2009, 11:46 am

I would use the death penalty for the crimes of multiple murders, serial rapists, and serial child molesters.

It can be argued that the killing of another human can be in the heat of the moment, or that such a person, even if capable of the premeditation of the murder of another, can be rehabilitated. I would argue that multiple homicides, even if not premeditated, indicate an inability to control oneself at all, especially and most particularly if not committed at the same time. One? Okay, there may be hope for you. Multiple murders? I don't think so...

For serial rapists and molesters, they are never going to stop. If being convicted before, and doing time, didn't get them into a position where they sought out help to keep themselves from doing such vileness again, the second/third/etc times won't either. Put them, and society, out of their misery.

StoneScratcher

September 21st, 2009, 12:14 pm

A castrated rapist would just find another way to abuse their victims...it's more about the power it gives them over the person that it is about getting off. The only thing that can be done to correct it is to kill them.

Let's do a study on this, because none have been done.

Let's suppose, though, that a sleeze ball rapes a child and has himself castrated because of it.

Without killing him, let's see if he repeats his crime. If so, make him sit down like a girl for the rest of his life.

----
As to what you say about "power it gives them over the person"--where are you getting that from? In order to get excited, they need a victim to overpower, yes--and a child is attractive to them. But they need the ability to get excited. Can a man get, you know, excited, if he's castrated and without testosterone? If so, why do they cut off bulls and horses doo-dads?

Samm

September 21st, 2009, 4:15 pm

I don't believe in the death penalty from conception to old age.

There is one thing I do wish would be used as a deterrent to the rape of a child. It is less harsh than death, and less restrictive than a life-sentence in prison.

Castration. Just cut them off and be done with it.

I am serious.

This thread is so old I do not remember if I participated or said this before, but...

On principle, imposing such penalties as mutilation or the death penalty to rape or molestation is emotionally satisfying, but it would result in more dead victims. In the mind of a criminal (and statistically as well,) one is more likely to get away with a crime if there are no witnesses.

Poisonshady313

September 21st, 2009, 4:54 pm

According to disastercenter.com

Within the past 33 years, the lowest number of murders in a year was 15,522.

Multiply that number by 33 years, and you still have less murders than the total number of murders in the past 33 years.

512,226 is the number. It's too low, but we'll work with it for now.

In the past 33 years, there have been 1174 executions.

Which means that less than 0.2% of murderers have been put to death in the last 33 years.

I'd like to see the death penalty applied to murder first, before we start considering expanding it to other crimes.

DLaw911

September 21st, 2009, 5:10 pm

..snipped....It can be argued that the killing of another human can be in the heat of the moment, or that such a person, even if capable of the premeditation of the murder of another, can be rehabilitated.Legally that would be manslaughter and not murder.
I would argue that multiple homicides, even if not premeditated, indicate an inability to control oneself at all, especially and most particularly if not committed at the same time. One? Okay, there may be hope for you. Multiple murders? I don't think so...Please explain to me, if you can, how Tim McVeigh got and received the DP for the Oklahoma Murrah Federal Building bombing, but Terry Nichols, convicted of 161 counts of first degree murder by a FEDERAL and a STATE jury received life without parole. This just points to the unequal application of the DP. Did McVeigh get it because he showed no remourse and looked sinister? Did McVeigh escape because he was bespeckled? Who knows.
For serial rapists and molesters, they are never going to stop. If being convicted before, and doing time, didn't get them into a position where they sought out help to keep themselves from doing such vileness again, the second/third/etc times won't either. Put them, and society, out of their misery.In CA (and other states) we formerly had the death penalty for non homicide offenses. The last person executed for rape was Caryl Chessman in May 1960.

Remus Lupin

September 21st, 2009, 5:12 pm

I'd say, excute child molestors as well.

markdido

September 21st, 2009, 5:16 pm

That is your choice but they are two seperate issues and one can without hypocrisy, be pro life and pro death penalty at the same time.

I believe it is actually cheaper to warehouse someone in prison for the rest of their life, than it is to execute them, considering all the years on death row, cost of appeals, etc.

However, all those years spent in prison need to be absolutely miserable.

mobiusptc

September 21st, 2009, 5:18 pm

i voted i am not sure but leaining toward yes. i am not really for the death penalty anymore due to the brian nichols case here in ga but part of me woudl not mind the death penalty being used on people like Bernie Madoff. this might just be a small minority of me but i cannot help but wonder that the thought of getting the chair after scheming out thousands of people from their money might make some potential guys like that....not do it.

DLaw911

September 21st, 2009, 5:19 pm

I support the death penalty as it is.

No change except that maybe if there are more than two witnesses then you only get one fast appeal then executed.Appeals and no writs? Factual innocense cannot be appealed. If after a first appeal newly discovered evidence comes forward proving beyond a shadow of a doubt not only that the person convicted is innocent, but demonstrates who really committed the crime, it could not be challenged by appeal (just like now). It can only be attacked by extraordinary writ suc hass habeas corpus. But it sould like you want to do away with that as well.

I know you said "witnesses." I can name cases in which NINE people identified an innocent man. Another where the FBI covered up their knowledge of the defendant's innocense and he was identified in a photo line up, a live line up and in court, and it turns out he was 400 miles away under FBI surveillance when the crime happened. Witnesses are fine when the person is stopped and detained at the scene. But once you get into eyewitness identification, especially cross-racial and where the suspect is a stranger, the best you get is someone who "resembles" the suspect.

I remember getting robbed in NYC and being shown a mug shot book after I gave a description to the police. I said that the main perp had a "David Letterman" like gap in his front teeth. So all the photos were of suspects who had that physical trait. And I did pick someone out, and I was positive since even the clothes were similar. The officer thanked me and told me that person had been dead for 5 years.

Samm

September 21st, 2009, 5:30 pm

Appeals and no writs? Factual innocense cannot be appealed. If after a first appeal newly discovered evidence comes forward proving beyond a shadow of a doubt not only that the person convicted is innocent, but demonstrates who really committed the crime, it could not be challenged by appeal (just like now). It can only be attacked by extraordinary writ suc hass habeas corpus. But it sould like you want to do away with that as well.

I know you said "witnesses." I can name cases in which NINE people identified an innocent man. Another where the FBI covered up their knowledge of the defendant's innocense and he was identified in a photo line up, a live line up and in court, and it turns out he was 400 miles away under FBI surveillance when the crime happened. Witnesses are fine when the person is stopped and detained at the scene. But once you get into eyewitness identification, especially cross-racial and where the suspect is a stranger, the best you get is someone who "resembles" the suspect.

I remember getting robbed in NYC and being shown a mug shot book after I gave a description to the police. I said that the main perp had a "David Letterman" like gap in his front teeth. So all the photos were of suspects who had that physical trait. And I did pick someone out, and I was positive since even the clothes were similar. The officer thanked me and told me that person had been dead for 5 years.

I was with another fellow when we were robbed by someone sporting a badge in a leather folder. When we were shown mug shots we both picked out the same person in a picture of three men standing side by side. It turns out, the man we picked out was one of the two policemen flanking a criminal in the picture.

I have always wondered if we were correct and that badge was authentic... :think:

DLaw911

September 21st, 2009, 5:36 pm

I was with another fellow when we were robbed by someone sporting a badge in a leather folder. When we were shown mug shots we both picked out the same person in a picture of three men standing side by side. It turns out, the man we picked out was one of the two policemen flanking a criminal in the picture.

I have always wondered if we were correct and that badge was authentic... :think:Now that's a funny story.!!

JeffR

September 21st, 2009, 6:48 pm

I think voter fraud in a Presidential election should be punishable by the death penalty.

Andrew_980

September 21st, 2009, 7:12 pm

Repeat offenders of any crime, with enough repeats depending on crime, should be pu down. Pick a number, any number, and anyone that gets sentenced to a cumulative nuber of years to hit that mark gets gakked

Kelzan

September 21st, 2009, 7:54 pm

Your opinion on the subject?

About the only other crime I can think of that would also deserve the death penalty is treason.

Dual867PowerMac

September 21st, 2009, 7:59 pm

It should be abolished altogether because the death penalty is revenge not justice.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Poisonshady313

September 21st, 2009, 8:43 pm

It should be abolished altogether because the death penalty is revenge not justice.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

One of the given definitions for justice:

the administering of deserved punishment or reward.

One of the given definitions for revenge:

to exact punishment or expiation for a wrong on behalf of.

I believe that at some point a murderer forfeits his own right to live in this world because of his own disregard for human life, and the laws designed to protect human life.

Besides... there are people being handed multiple life sentences. These people are obviously never going to see the light of day again (figuratively speaking... they do get time in "the yard")... if they're never going to experience freedom again, why bother having them live another 50-70 years?

Andrew_980

September 21st, 2009, 8:47 pm

It should be abolished altogether because the death penalty is revenge not justice.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

It isn't about wrongs or rights, it is about ending threats.

StoneScratcher

September 21st, 2009, 10:06 pm

This thread is so old I do not remember if I participated or said this before, but...

On principle, imposing such penalties as mutilation or the death penalty to rape or molestation is emotionally satisfying, but it would result in more dead victims. In the mind of a criminal (and statistically as well,) one is more likely to get away with a crime if there are no witnesses.

I don't know what old thread you're talking about...was I part of it?

I wanted to say that I don't think the castration is for emotionally satisfying the victims or the families of the victims. It would be to cause the sex offender to not be able to get excited enough to satisfy themselves with their need for a helpless victim to control.

Would a castrated man NEED any victim to get off with if they don't have the means to even get the urge to become excited?

When you say this:

it would result in more dead victims. In the mind of a criminal (and statistically as well,) one is more likely to get away with a crime if there are no witnesses

Then why do most sex offenders leave sperm or other DNA evidence?

DLaw911

September 21st, 2009, 10:11 pm

..snipped....Then why do most sex offenders leave sperm or other DNA evidence?Actually they don't. Only in certain types of sex offenses. Take child molesters for example --- VERY rare that DNA is found except in cases of child rape (since child molestation can be mere touching, fondleing, kissing, hugging, groping through clothes.

Well let me qualify what I said -- DNA is probably left by the perp at every crime scene. The problem is finding it. Without going into a long analysis let me assure you that if it's not where you would expect to find it, chances are you won't without spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a blind hunt that may never produce anything.

CID_0687

September 21st, 2009, 10:30 pm

Let's do a study on this, because none have been done.

Let's suppose, though, that a sleeze ball rapes a child and has himself castrated because of it.

Without killing him, let's see if he repeats his crime. If so, make him sit down like a girl for the rest of his life.

----
As to what you say about "power it gives them over the person"--where are you getting that from? In order to get excited, they need a victim to overpower, yes--and a child is attractive to them. But they need the ability to get excited. Can a man get, you know, excited, if he's castrated and without testosterone? If so, why do they cut off bulls and horses doo-dads?
Where am I getting that from? People that spent their lives in law enforcement. People that have worked sex crimes, and interviewed those scumbags. There's no rehabilitation for them.

Do some research on the amount of sex crimes where there is actually penetration...you'll be surprised on what the numbers are.

The best thing to do is to off the bastards and make the world a little brighter.

smyrna

September 21st, 2009, 10:53 pm

Your opinion on the subject?

Anyone who is sentenced the death penalty after a fair trial should be subject to the following;
The US should buy a Bahama Island and have two destroyers circling it at all times. Anything going to or coming from should be blown out of the water...no questions asked. A helicopter should be sent to drop supplies once a day. The prisoners can set up their own government and settle stuff their own way. Their wouldn't be any need for heat or airconditioning. We could cut expenses and get these worthless pieces of dung off of societies back.

Should we expand the death penalty...certain types of kidnapping, rape, child molestation and other violent crimes should have the death penalty looming overhead but...don't use it...send them to the island.

PhantomPholly

September 21st, 2009, 11:27 pm

I would be in favor of a "points" system. Some crimes in their definition are not obviously horrific, but when taken to incredible magnitude (e.g. Bernie Madoff) become akin to a "crime against humanity" purely on scale.

Note that that could conceivably make computer hacking and virus writing a capital offense. I'll bet a lot of people would line up behind THAT!

:))

Claymore

September 21st, 2009, 11:32 pm

Murder
Kidnapping
Rape
Child Molestation
Drug Trafficking
Armed Robbery
Gang/Mob/Organized Crime Leadership
Treason
Espionage
Terrorism

Samm

September 22nd, 2009, 12:23 am

I don't know what old thread you're talking about...was I part of it?

I am talking about this thread... look at the date of post 149.

I wanted to say that I don't think the castration is for emotionally satisfying the victims or the families of the victims. It would be to cause the sex offender to not be able to get excited enough to satisfy themselves with their need for a helpless victim to control.

Would a castrated man NEED any victim to get off with if they don't have the means to even get the urge to become excited?

When you say this:

Then why do most sex offenders leave sperm or other DNA evidence?
If a man is going to be executed or castrated for rape or child molestation, then he is very likely to try to cover his tracks by murdering the victim regardless of the probability of being caught. He has nothing to lose and everything to gain by eliminating the witness.

And just because on the CSI TV shows they always find the perp in a couple of days or so through DNA and other forensic evidence, the real world is not so neat and tidy... Currently there are thousands of DNA crime scene evidence samples that are sitting there unprocessed, some for several years, because the labs do not have the capacity to process them in a timely manner. And you have to have someone in custody or at least under active investigation to compare the samples to... the DNA et al does not have the name of the rapist/molester on it. The DNA may help with conviction, but it does almost nothing for apprehension.

DLaw911

September 22nd, 2009, 12:44 am

Anyone who is sentenced the death penalty after a fair trial should be subject to the following;
The US should buy a Bahama Island and have two destroyers circling it at all times. Anything going to or coming from should be blown out of the water...no questions asked. A helicopter should be sent to drop supplies once a day. The prisoners can set up their own government and settle stuff their own way. Their wouldn't be any need for heat or airconditioning. We could cut expenses and get these worthless pieces of dung off of societies back.

Should we expand the death penalty...certain types of kidnapping, rape, child molestation and other violent crimes should have the death penalty looming overhead but...don't use it...send them to the island.So how do you get around the constituitonal guarantees against cruel and unusual punishment?

Samm

September 22nd, 2009, 1:05 am

So how do you get around the constituitonal guarantees against cruel and unusual punishment?

Not to mention using US Armed Forces to guard a prison...

angelicmadrigal

September 22nd, 2009, 10:44 am

Isn't treason already punishible by death?
May be Terrorists should also be treated as traitors.

Unfortuantely it doesn't work like that. A foreign national can't be a traitor technically because they're allegiences lie elsewhere already. TREASON (and traitorous activity) implies the act of working against your OWN country, NOT someone elses. You also can't be a traitor to a country you have no technical allegience too.

signcut

September 22nd, 2009, 11:50 am

Please explain to me, if you can, how Tim McVeigh got and received the DP for the Oklahoma Murrah Federal Building bombing, but Terry Nichols, convicted of 161 counts of first degree murder by a FEDERAL and a STATE jury received life without parole. This just points to the unequal application of the DP. Did McVeigh get it because he showed no remourse and looked sinister? Did McVeigh escape because he was bespeckled? Who knows.

I'm guessing that it may have been because he was not actually the one who parked the bomb in the building, despite being involved in the preparation and carrying out of the plan.

To be honest, no, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me either, then or now.

On the other hand, is there a law, any at all, that is completely equal in application?

Poisonshady313

September 22nd, 2009, 5:06 pm

It should be abolished altogether because the death penalty is revenge not justice.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Here's something interesting, from the 1972 Supreme Court dissenting opinion in the case of Furman V Georgia.

For those who don't know, this is the opinion in favor of retaining the death penalty:

While retribution alone may seem an unworthy justification in a moral sense, its utility in a system of criminal justice requiring public support has long been recognized. Lord Justice Denning, now Master of the Rolls of the Court of Appeal in England, testified on this subject before the British Royal Commission on Capital Punishment:

Many are inclined to test the efficacy of punishment solely by its value as a deterrent: but this is too narrow a view. Punishment is the way in which society expresses its denunciation of wrongdoing, and, in order to maintain respect for law, it is essential that the punishment inflicted for grave crimes should adequately reflect the revulsion felt by the great majority of citizens for them. It is a mistake to consider the objects of punishment as being deterrent or reformative or preventive, and nothing else. If this were so, we should not send to prison a man who was guilty of motor manslaughter, but only disqualify him from driving; but would public opinion be content with this? The truth is that some crimes are so outrageous that society insists on adequate punishment, because the wrongdoer deserves it, irrespective of whether it is a deterrent or not.