Death Penalty Opponents, This Is Who You Champion

Obviously guilty doesn't cut it. The law says that all who are convicted are 100% guilty. They were convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. You can't just pick out the more egregious ones at your own whim and do them in without due process.

0 Replies

I'll go with everything you said, Foxy, except for the bit about an 'ultimate penalty'. There doesn't seem to be a purpose to it, that's why.

Emotionally, there are cases where I'd like to see the perpetrator roasting in hell. Nevertheless, I wouldn't want to kill another human being, and therefore I don't want my government to kill another human being, as my government consists of my elected representatives.

I feel a modern society or democracy should show respect for all life. There is just no need or justification for executing a person. A modern society has other means available.

0 Replies

OE writes

Quote:

I feel a modern society or democracy should show respect for all life. There is just no need or justification for executing a person. A modern society has other means available.

As do I, including the unborn Smile

The only ones I would wish to be sentenced to death are those few who commit crimes justifying the maximum penalty and, by virtue of that, are a danger to all others that encounter them, including many innocent potential victims. It's all a matter of perspective I think. Does the life of the guilty count as much as his innocent victim?

It is true that we can absolutely ensure that these people never hurt anyone again. But the law will not allow us to do what we would have to do for that assurance. Ironically, the law will allow us to put them to death if so ordered by a jury of their peers.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The only ones I would wish to be sentenced to death are those few who commit crimes justifying the maximum penalty

I don't want to switch into 'stupid mode' for the sake of discussion. But how would you determinate whom to execute? What crimes would justify the maximum penalty?

I mean, would you limit it to serial killers? Or to cases like the one Lusatian posted?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

OE writes

Quote:
I feel a modern society or democracy should show respect for all life. There is just no need or justification for executing a person. A modern society has other means available.

As do I, including the unborn

The only ones I would wish to be sentenced to death are those few who commit crimes justifying the maximum penalty and, by virtue of that, are a danger to all others that encounter them, including many innocent potential victims. It's all a matter of perspective I think. Does the life of the guilty count as much as his innocent victim?

It is true that we can absolutely ensure that these people never hurt anyone again. But the law will not allow us to do what we would have to do for that assurance. Ironically, the law will allow us to put them to death if so ordered by a jury of their peers.

Here's the thing I don't understand.

It's not OK to castrate rapists.
It's not OK to cut off the hand of a thief
But it is OK to kill them.

How does that work exactly?

0 Replies

OE writes

Quote:

I don't want to switch into 'stupid mode' for the sake of discussion. But how would you determinate whom to execute? What crimes would justify the maximum penalty?

I mean, would you limit it to serial killers? Or to cases like the one Lusatian posted?

I don't think you're ever anywhere close to 'stupid mode' OE, and I think your questions are entirely reasonable. So damn reasonable they make me uncomfortable. Smile

I think every case would have to be looked at and considered within specific criteria and the recommendation would have to come from a jury. But let's look at the infamous Willie Horton who has been used to illustrate Democrat liberal fuzzy headed thinking, Republican dirty tricks and/or racism, and to help sway a presidential election. His case is also useful for this illustration. He was serving a life sentence for murder, but was furloughed for a weekend by a sympathetic governor who believed nobody was beyond redemption or rehabilitation.

Horton broke into a home, assaulted the husband who was home, tied him up, stripped him, castrated him and stuffed his testicles in his mouth, and proceeded to further torture him. He had cut the man 22 times across his midsection when the wife came home. The still bound and still living man had to watch him rape and murder his wife. In my way of thinking, this goes way beyond your average garden variety murder.

Lusatian's example is another one.

There just has to be some ultimate penalty for the cruel, sadistic, sociopathic types who torture and murder for fun. Nor should other inmates, prison guards, medical workers, or anyone else have to be at risk from these kinds of people.

0 Replies

Earl writes

Quote:

Here's the thing I don't understand.

It's not OK to castrate rapists.
It's not OK to cut off the hand of a thief
But it is OK to kill them.

How does that work exactly?

I don't thnk most rapists deserve the death penalty. I don't think any thief deserves the death penalty. I think most people at least agree with me on that. So the analogy doesn't quote work does it?

0 Replies

No, you are right Foxfyre. I made my point poorly.

The point I was trying to make is that there seems to be only two possible penalties for a serial killer....three meals and a bed for 20 years....or death. Why are more severe penalties not options...death seems to an amazingly big leap up the punishment scale.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:
You cannot separate the 100% proven guilty from the others, because, according to the law, each and every one convicted is 100% guilty.

I would rather 1 inncoent person be put to death then 100 guilty not be put to death. Give everyone who is death row a new DNA testing and if it turns up in their favor let them free, but if it turns up not in their favor let them fry.

You gonna volunteer?

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

Obviously guilty doesn't cut it. The law says that all who are convicted are 100% guilty. They were convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. You can't just pick out the more egregious ones at your own whim and do them in without due process.

Reasonable doubt... I wonder if we could require a higher standard for capital punishment?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I think every case would have to be looked at and considered within specific criteria and the recommendation would have to come from a jury. But let's look at the infamous Willie Horton....

That's what I was trying to get answered... What would be specific criteria? How could you determinate which murderer is worse than the other?

I don't really want to go into the Horton case. I think it has been overused, and I don't think you can discuss the issue based on some examples if you want to get to a general rule on when to (or whether to) impose capital punishment. Individual cases can be discussed at great length, and of course examples can be found where prisoners escaped even from maximum security facilities (unlike the Horton case). The same is true for cases where people were convicted and executed, only to be found innocent afterwards.

Somebody said in a post on this thread: "So would you want to have a maximum security prison in your back yard?" I think what he/she was trying to say: So what if somebody would escape from prison and threaten your life?
Well, this goes both ways as well: So what if you were innocent and were convicted for murder due to the testimonies of bought witnesses? Doesn't happen? Well, it does. Doesn't happen to you? Why not? Because you're a white anglo-saxon protestant? Then you'd say that capital punishment is racist, wouldn't you?

I don't share the opinion that even 'life without parole' prisoners should be rehabilitated and eventually granted commutations. That's why I'd say: make sure that 'life without parole' is just that.

Jurisprudence generally recognizes the killing of a perpetrator in self-defense as justifiable homicide if the perpetrator is in the commission of a criminal act which threatens your life. Absent this threatening criminal act, the killing of a perpetrator is criminal homicide; that is, manslaughter or murder.

So why should this be different concerning the country/government/nation? If a dangerous criminal is locked up in a prison, he is not actually threatening somebody's life. Get me right: I'm all for making sure that he damn well has no way of threatening somebody's life, neither that of fellow inmates, nor that of prison guards, nor that of medical workers.

But with the 'self-defense' of incarceration available to societies today, I can see no need to execute anybody.

0 Replies

I accept that this is your conviction OE, and I respect it.

I only used Willie Horton as illustration for your specific question. That particular example has all the components that figure into my entire argument.

As to what criteria would apply to the 'ultimate penalty', that would have to be defined by law, evaluated by a jury, adjudicated by a judge and would be left to wiser people than me to decide. As I have said before, I think there should be no margin of error re the guilt of a person receiving the ultimate penalty--in others words the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' clause should be "absolute certainty of guilt'.

Again my reasoning is not to exact vengeance upon anybody but to protect the innocent. As both deterrant and final solution toward that end, and for reasons already stated, I will continue to support the death penalty for the most cruel and viscious crimes.

0 Replies

Updated: 07:30 AM EDT
Freeway Shootings Rattle Southern California Motorists
State Highway Patrol Forms Team to Investigate Cases

Quote:

SANTA CLARITA, Calif (May 3) - Following the eighth Southern California freeway shooting in two months, the state Highway Patrol announced it has created an investigative team to more quickly track down leads in the cases.

The new unit will work with local law enforcement agencies as troopers also increase their patrols on the region's freeways, officials said. Four people have been killed in 11 freeway shootings this year.

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050502231809990004&ncid=NWS00010000000001

If this indiviual is caught. What punishment would you prescribe. 40 years in a cell or capital punishment?

0 Replies

au1929 -

life without parole

But didn't this make you wonder:

Quote:

Four people have been killed in 11 freeway shootings this year. [...] According to data released by authorities, there were 36 freeway shootings, with one person killed, in 2004. In 2003, there were 46 incidents and four fatalities.

91 freeway shootings in 3 years? Bloody hell!

0 Replies

OE,
You said..."How could you determinate which murderer is worse than the other?"

Simple...EVERY murderer gets the death penalty!!!
If you take a persons life,you lose yours.How hard is that?
That includes drunk driving fatalities,homocides,intentional murder,whatever.
If you kill a cop,you get the death penalty.
Kill a fireman or a corrections officer,you get the death penalty.
Kill anyone,you get the death penalty.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

OE,
You said..."How could you determinate which murderer is worse than the other?"

Simple...EVERY murderer gets the death penalty!!!
If you take a persons life,you lose yours.How hard is that?
That includes drunk driving fatalities,homocides,intentional murder,whatever.
If you kill a cop,you get the death penalty.
Kill a fireman or a corrections officer,you get the death penalty.
Kill anyone,you get the death penalty.

Would you support the DP for someone who accidentally killed someone in a car wreck? I'm not talking DUI, I'm talking about icy road and car goes out of control.

0 Replies

Thanks, Baldimo, was just about to say the same thing.

0 Replies

Funny thing, and kind of unrelated, but I was just googling up the very random words "dies in" in the Google News Search, and the first story about somebody dying in something (apart from old agex2 and accidentsx2) was this story:

Phoenix Man Dies After Being Tasered

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
OE,
You said..."How could you determinate which murderer is worse than the other?"

Simple...EVERY murderer gets the death penalty!!!
If you take a persons life,you lose yours.How hard is that?
That includes drunk driving fatalities,homocides,intentional murder,whatever.
If you kill a cop,you get the death penalty.
Kill a fireman or a corrections officer,you get the death penalty.
Kill anyone,you get the death penalty.

Would you support the DP for someone who accidentally killed someone in a car wreck? I'm not talking DUI, I'm talking about icy road and car goes out of control.

In your scenario,then no I wouldnt.An accident is just that,an accident.
But,if the driver that lost control was drunk,then YES,the DP applies.

OE,
NO,those cops do NOT deserve the DP.
The man that died assaulted them.The man that died CHOSE to assault those cops,he CHOSE to take the risk,so he CHOSE to accept the consequences.

0 Replies

old europe

No that happened in performance of their duty. The question was asked out of context.

0 Replies

Death Penalty Opponents, This Is Who You Champion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know