Death Penalty Opponents, This Is Who You Champion

Mama Tried

Well i turned twenty-one in prison
Doin' Life without Parole
Mama tried to raise me better
Mama tried, Mama tried
Mama tried to raise me better
But her pleadin' i denied
That leaves only me to blame
'Cause Mama tried . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Mama Tried

Well i turned twenty-one in prison
Doin' Life without Parole
Mama tried to raise me better
Mama tried, Mama tried
Mama tried to raise me better
But her pleadin' i denied
That leaves only me to blame
'Cause Mama tried . . .

Is this in support of the DP?

0 Replies

MM Writes

Quote:

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.

Though I can really appreciate the sentiment, I can't go this far in support of the death penalty. If you are going to get the death penalty anyway, there would be no incentive for not taking out as many as you can, for not torturing some to death, for not committing those most grievous crimes.

True story: Once in a little north Texas Panhandle town a woman made flour paste to feed her three hungry young children as the flour was the only food in the house and there was no money to get more. The husband had left to go find work or hock some items he said. She found him a few hours later in the downtown cafe having a steak, sharing a bottle and yucking it up with his friends. She pulled a 45 out of her purse and put a bullet through his head. She got seven years. There weren't many complaints that the sentence wasn't sufficient.

There is always the crime of passion, the panicked shot fired during a holdup when the robber had no clear intent to hurt anyone, the drunks having it out in the tavern parking lot, etc. These people need long prison sentences; some will deserve life. But they didn't intentionally make their victims suffer a slow, degrading, unbearably painful, or otherwise terrible death.

The death penalty should be reserved for those who do that.

0 Replies

Fox,
You said..."the panicked shot fired during a holdup when the robber had no clear intent to hurt anyone"...the fact that the robber didnt intend to hurt anyone is not relevant.
Using your example,the robber killed someone during the commission of another crime.
The bad guys intention was to deprive some law abiding citizen of his or her property.
During that robbery,the bad guy panicked and shot someone.
Thats to bad.
Even though it was an "accident",IMO it still qualifies for the death penalty.

The reason I dont agree with your "it was an accident" scenario is because an innocent person is still dead.
That trumps "I'm sorry".

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Mama Tried

Well i turned twenty-one in prison . . . etc. . .

Is this in support of the DP?

No, it's a reaction to the reduction of this topic to logic chopping asburdity . . . i consider the topic exhausted, and am now entertaining myself . . .

0 Replies

I always liked that tune, EB, they play it from time to time on The Dr. Demento program . . .

0 Replies

Another interesting fact:

New Mexico and Texas do not have life without parole

So either you get a life sentence, but you might be out in a couple of years. Or you get the death penalty...

Don't people think there should be something in between?

0 Replies

There are periodic bills for life w/o parole here, but they keep getting shot down. I think there's one this session that has a pretty good chance of passing.

0 Replies

OE writes

Quote:

Another interesting fact:

New Mexico and Texas do not have life without parole

So either you get a life sentence, but you might be out in a couple of years. Or you get the death penalty...

Don't people think there should be something in between?

Also here there are those who resist the 'life without parole' because that's the club they hold over the prisoners' heads. If they 'have no hope' of getting out, there is no incentive to earn good time.

Even the death sentence here doesn't mean much though. It is used extremely rarely, and every now and then we get an anti-death-penalty governor who commutes all the death sentences to life. Which makes them eligible for parole.

0 Replies

Mysteryman - Now what if this driver was not drunk, but say fell asleep? Or what if said driver was driving recklessly, say he was weaving in and out of cars, but driving at a very high rate of speed?

0 Replies

mm writes

Quote:

The reason I dont agree with your "it was an accident" scenario is because an innocent person is still dead.
That trumps "I'm sorry".

I just can't see the scared kid who fires in panic and kills somebody in the same light as the person who methodically buries a child alive to kill her. The large percentage of those who murder kill one person swiftly and impulsively and never kill again. Should the crime go unpunished? Of course not. The penalty should be absolute and severe for taking a life. But I just don't put those in the same category with the viscious, sociopathic sadists. I think there has to be degrees of penalty.

But, we may just have to have a reasonable difference of opinion on this one.

0 Replies

Linkat wrote:

Mysteryman - Now what if this driver was not drunk, but say fell asleep? Or what if said driver was driving recklessly, say he was weaving in and out of cars, but driving at a very high rate of speed?

Lets start with the reckless driver,ok.
That person CHOSE to drive recklessly,CHOSE to endanger his life and others,CHOSE to take the risk,so that driver CHOSE to accept the consequences.
If another person dies because the reckless driver CHOSE to endanger other lives,then that reckless driver gets the death penalty.
Notice the highliughted word...CHOICE.
Its called taking responsibility for ones own actions.

As for the driver that fell asleep,is there a medical condition that might have caused it?
How long has that person been driving that day?
Did that person work all day then try and drive all night?
There are several factors that would have to be taken into consideration,but if that driver KNEW he was getting tired,and continued to drive anyway,then you can read what I wrote about the reckless driver,because it applies here.

Fox,
While I respect your opinion,we have to agree to disagree on this.
Your "scared kid" CHOSE to commit a crime,CHOSE to use a gun,CHOSE to take the risk that someone (including himself) might get hurt or killed,so that kid CHOSE to accept the penalties of his actions,no matter what those penalties are.

0 Replies

MysteryMan it sounds as if you want to re-define murder.

If reckless behaviour begets the death penalty then that means that the offence of manslaughter will be repealed.

So if A kills B recklessly then it's murder and the death penalty will follow.

Is that it?

0 Replies

And what's the penalty for say, armed robbery?

Burglary?

Vandalism?

Littering?

0 Replies

Aw, I'd give mysteryman the benefit of doubt that he doesn't want to kill everybody...

I've got another question: Does anybody think that, would there be less weapons or weapons less readily available, that we might see a decrease in murder/manslaughter?

I'm just asking this because I came across numbers saying that in California, more than 30,000 inmates are serving life terms. That's twice as many as in the entire European Union, which has a population 12 times larger.

0 Replies

Mysteryman - At least for the most part you are consistent in your logic - I don't agree with your conclusion that anyone who has made a choice even if it is a bad choice deserves to be killed for it. Well at least that would solve the overpopulation as many people would be executed. It is a bit extreme.

A couple of holes in it - is the difficulty to know within a reasonable doubt whether some one made a choice. How do you know within a reasonable doubt that the driver knew he was getting tired? He could lie and said, I felt fine when I went behind the wheel, then this boring music came on the radio and before I knew it, I fell asleep.

What about an elderly person whose reactions times are slowing down. He stepped on the gas instead of the brake. Or he didn't see the kid crossing the street and killed him. He made a choice to get behind the wheel. He should have realized that his senses were failing him? But maybe he didn't or didn't realize how badly his senses have changed.

What about a five year old who chooses to get in his parents car and drive to the video store and kills some one? He made a choice? Or a teenager who picked up his dad's gun and accidentally shot and killed his friend? He made a choice to get his dad's gun and play with it?

Using DrewDad's suggestions - what if someone littered, say someone intentionally dropped a banana peel - assuming this litter bug needs to take responsibility for his actions - if some one then walking down the street slipped on the banana peel, hit his head and was killed, would the litter bug then be sentenced to death?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

...

I've got another question: Does anybody think that, would there be less weapons or weapons less readily available, that we might see a decrease in murder/manslaughter?

I'm just asking this because I came across numbers saying that in California, more than 30,000 inmates are serving life terms. That's twice as many as in the entire European Union, which has a population 12 times larger.

Perhaps we have better police and catch our criminals, rather than let them run among the general population?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Perhaps we have better police and catch our criminals, rather than let them run among the general population?

Do you really think that is the reason, Tico?

0 Replies

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/euusdeter.GIF

0 Replies

Death Penalty Opponents, This Is Who You Champion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know