Way to go Alabama

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Although they should have fried him after his first murder.

Quote:

Alabama Executes 74-Year-Old Murderer

Thu Aug 5, 8:47 PM ET

By SAMIRA JAFARI, Associated Press Writer

ATMORE, Ala. - A 74-year-old murderer became the oldest U.S. inmate put to death in decades Thursday after courts and the governor refused to stop his execution.

James Barney Hubbard died by injection at 6:36 p.m. at Holman Prison near Atmore.

Hubbard was executed for the 1977 murder of 62-year-old Lillian Montgomery of Tuscaloosa. She was shot in the head and robbed after befriending Hubbard, who had been released from prison after serving 19 years for a 1957 killing.

Earlier Thursday, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to deny a stay for Hubbard. His attorney contended the execution would amount to cruel and unusual punishment for someone so old and mentally incompetent.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,695 • Replies: 46

No top replies

A queen song comes to mind on this one, any one want to sing along?

Another one bites the dust......

If they think it was so cruel and unusual then we should limit the amount of time someone sits in jail before they are put to death. He was in his 30's when he killed the lady, we should really speed up this process so it doesn't take 30 years to be put to death.

0 Replies

Another happy post brought to you by Happy Posters R Us Wink

0 Replies

Barbaric.

0 Replies

Rick d'Israeli wrote:

Barbaric.

How so Rick?

A man kills someone, serves NINETEEN years for that crime.

Gets out of prison and then a year later, murders ANOTHER person (One who had befriended him and given him a place to live)

What are you supposed to do with such a person, shake your finger at them and say: "NO NO NO, no more killing.[/i] Then put him back in prison and wait until he is paroled again and kills someone else?

I'll tell you what, I will agree NOT to execute such people if YOU agree to give them a room in your house when they get out of prison.

0 Replies

Jer wrote:

Another happy post brought to you by Happy Posters R Us

Oh jeez, I thought this was going to be about banning sex toys!

0 Replies

Fedral,

I think arguing that the execution itself is not barbvaric may well be a whole lot easier than defending the apparent glee about it demonstrated by some.

Whatever one's feelings on the death penalty are, it's not something to cheer about IMO.

That kind of reaction undermines the more balanced death penalty advocates and helps reinforce the notion of barbarism through immaturity.

0 Replies

Fedral wrote:

Rick d'Israeli wrote:
Barbaric.

How so Rick?

A man kills someone, serves NINETEEN years for that crime.

Gets out of prison and then a year later, murders ANOTHER person (One who had befriended him and given him a place to live)

What are you supposed to do with such a person, shake your finger at them and say: "NO NO NO, no more killing.[/i] Then put him back in prison and wait until he is paroled again and kills someone else?

I'll tell you what, I will agree NOT to execute such people if YOU agree to give them a room in your house when they get out of prison.

The death sentence can not be reversed. Once in a while you see headlines speaking about people (who were convicted) set free, because they appear to be innocent. If the sentence was prison time, the error can be corrected (well, partially). If the man was executed, ...

Next to that, killing offenders to retaliate is primitive. Nobody should be killed by a person, or by the system. There is no justification in that. There are enough alternative punishments that can provide in proper sentence.

Also, the system should provide second chances. You can't kill/lock away somebody for the rest of their lives just because of one error. There will always be some that go bad after receiving a second chance, but it wouldn't be justified to take out the second chance because of that.

0 Replies

How many chances are you willing to give someone? There are enough cases where someone gets out of prison after serving a stint for murder and they do it again. Are you willing to tell the public that the person learned their lesson the second time? What happens if they kill again, are you willing to explain to the victims family they won't do it again a third time?

There is nothing wrong with using the death sentence on people. It should be used more often and earlier in their sentence so that they aren't in prison for 30 years sucking up taxpayer money.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

How many chances are you willing to give someone? There are enough cases where someone gets out of prison after serving a stint for murder and they do it again. Are you willing to tell the public that the person learned their lesson the second time? What happens if they kill again, are you willing to explain to the victims family they won't do it again a third time?

I don't know how this is done in the United States. Here in the Netherlands, the judge will rule considering the probability the offender will return to previous behavior, like killing or raping (if he is mentally sick). If there is a high probability, the judge will sentence the offender to jail AND sentence him to TBS (state mental institution). Here, offenders will be evaluated every X years to see if they are fit to return to society. In practice this means offenders can be contained indefinitely.

My point is that you can't lock out offenders from a second chance if there is a good probability the offender will not murder or rape again. It should be a balance between safety for society and giving an offender a second chance. Just because some go bad again, you can't take away the second chance.

Quote:

There is nothing wrong with using the death sentence on people. It should be used more often and earlier in their sentence so that they aren't in prison for 30 years sucking up taxpayer money.

Containing the offenders who committed serious offences doesn't cost the taxpayer very much. If i remember correct, most persons convicted in the USA are drugs related (hint!).

0 Replies

Maybe this is part of the solution for our health care problem.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

How many chances are you willing to give someone? There are enough cases where someone gets out of prison after serving a stint for murder and they do it again. Are you willing to tell the public that the person learned their lesson the second time? What happens if they kill again, are you willing to explain to the victims family they won't do it again a third time?

There is nothing wrong with using the death sentence on people. It should be used more often and earlier in their sentence so that they aren't in prison for 30 years sucking up taxpayer money.

It has always been interesting to me that many of the people expressing the opinions above consider themselves to be good Christians.

Edit:The above comment is in no way meant to denigrate the truly good Christians (IMHO) of which I am aware of many participating on these forums.

0 Replies

Why does someone have to be Christian to have a moral view on something?

0 Replies

You don't deserve a second chance for murder. It doesn't really matter if you could go back into society and work a virtually worthless job and live a nameless life. You make the decision to deliberately kill a civilian life and thats your only chance. It should either be quick painless death (like injecion) or life in a shitty prison no chance of parole as a consequence. Not only will it get rid of the second chance murders but also deters the idea of murder from the mind of many more people. This will save more (and more precious) lives, if we just give no tolerance to murder.

0 Replies

I think we should have a system where your death sentence should fit your crime. If you kill someone in a horrible manner you should have your life taken from you in the same manner.

The problem with our prison system is that it is too nice and not harsh enough. It should be for punishment.

0 Replies

Well no see thats the thing. Thats taking it too far and stooping to their level. An eye for an eye isnt the only kind of punishment.

0 Replies

My 'Barbaric' was because I object to the death sentence. Now, when a killer takes lives, I'm not a supporter of giving that person only four years and than release him. It's an ethical question. What is the use of killing a person? Yes, (s)he has done the most horrible crimes, killed so many, and by that, destroyed so many other lives (parents, children, etc.). But what do you gain with putting him/her to death? The murdered persons will never be brought back. And in a sort of "wrong" kind of way, the relatives of the cold blooded murderer (who deserves no sympathy) will still be hurt, maybe deep inside, although they will never express it, cuz their son/father/daughter/mother etc. is in essence a cold blooded murderer (who deserves no sympathy), who took lives and hurt so many innocents.

And Craven de Kere, you may find 'Barbaric' childish, but I thought that was the clearest definition there was. It does not mean the US is barbaric. But I do believe that the essence of the death sentence is barbaric, even when it is done in the most "humane" way.

0 Replies

LOL, the essence of the death penalty is logic, it is the only method absolutely certain to prevent a murder from murdering again.

To dismiss it as barbaric is to dismiss yourself as lacking logic.

0 Replies

Karzak wrote:

LOL, the essence of the death penalty is logic, it is the only method absolutely certain to prevent a murder from murdering again.

What about sentencing someone for life?

Karzak, don't start about 'logic'. I made my point.

0 Replies

Rick d'Israeli wrote:

What about sentencing someone for life?

Karzak, don't start about 'logic'. I made my point.

The problem is Rick, 'Life' sentences do not mean that you will be in prison for the rest of your life. It usually means that you will be in prison for 15 to 35 years (Depending on the state you are convicted in) before you have a good chance of getting paroled. That means that the people put away for 'Life' could be back out on the street in 20 years like the individual in the original article.

Am I happy that a persons life was ended? No.

Am I relieved that this individual will no longer be able to hurt anyone else? Yes.

Am I sure that after the execution, this individual will never, EVER kill another person again? Yup.

To quote Texas comedian Ron White:
"If you kill someone... we'll kill you right back."

TradingWise wrote:

I don't know how this is done in the United States. Here in the Netherlands, the judge will rule considering the probability the offender will return to previous behavior, like killing or raping (if he is mentally sick). If there is a high probability, the judge will sentence the offender to jail AND sentence him to TBS (state mental institution). Here, offenders will be evaluated every X years to see if they are fit to return to society. In practice this means offenders can be contained indefinitely.

Here in the States, this would be considered illegal and a violation of the individuals civil rights. Once the person has served his sentence, he can't be held for that crime further.

0 Replies

Way to go Alabama

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know