Death Penalty Opponents, This Is Who You Champion

tape his mouth shut, put him in cuffs, dress him up in the robes of the kkk and drop him of in compton about 9 pm on a hot summer saturday night ?

My pleasure...

Ditto - Bella Dea except the criminal also needs to work hard labor for 12 hours a day. Something extremely unpleasant, but still pays enough for that bland food, water, use of the toilet and the 6x6 spot he occupies.

Ooo, yeah...then they would have to hire less (if any) janitorial workers, gardners, laundry workers, whatever....and it would cost us much less as taxpayers.

Bella we have been agreeing too much lately. I thought the purpose of A2K was to be able to fight and argue without any logic.

The rule of law for the military by its nature deals with parameters, ramifications, and consequences foreign to the civilian sphere. Hasan Akbar should be led in shackles to the parade ground, there be ceremonially stripped of rank and insignia, be bound to a sturdy post, be blindfolded, and be dispatched by firin' squad, all before a large, representative assembly of personnel from the various branches of the Services and media.


I suppose its too much to expect that his remains be then left to the elements and the critters ... but the thought appeals.

Timber
YES!

Va. Court Upholds Sniper's Death Penalty

By LARRY O'DELL
Associated Press Writer

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) -- The Virginia Supreme Court on Friday upheld sniper John Allen Muhammad's murder convictions and death penalty for carrying out what it called a "cruel scheme of terror" that left 10 people dead around the Washington area.

The court brushed aside arguments that Muhammad could not be sentenced to death under state law because he was not the triggerman. And it rejected claims that the post-Sept. 11 terrorism law under which he was prosecuted is unconstitutionally vague.

"If society's ultimate penalty should be reserved for the most heinous offenses, accompanied by proof of vileness or future dangerousness, then surely this case qualifies," Justice Donald Lemons wrote.


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SNIPER_SHOOTINGS_MUHAMMAD?SITE=1010WINS&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT


Now it remains to be seen how long it will take for the penalty to be exacted. IMO they should take him out and hang him immediately.

I can think of no reason why an inquisitorial system would be considered to be "far better."

Ticomaya - the common law system is hidebound. The rules of evidence are archaic. Procedure is far more important than fact finding. Serious crimes are investigated in a far different manner in the inquisitorial system . It's just my opinion but for mine it's superior.

Not only do I favor the death penalty,I would like to see it expanded.

If you kill someone while driving under the influence,thats a death penalty offense.
Abuse or murder a child...death penalty
Kill anyone during the commission of a crime...death penalty
Kill a cop...death penalty
Kill a fireman...death penalty


There are more,but my point is quite simple,
If you CHOOSE to do the crime,then you CHOOSE to pay the price.

If you can't do the time don't do the crime.

Clamorous voices denouncing the death penalty (many of them foreigners, others merely flaming liberals), all trying to vocalize opinions or produce "evidence" that the death penalty is "inhumane", ineffective as a deterrent, and "uncivilized". But, my argument is extremely simple, and only consists of two considerations. If someone can trounce the merits of said two considerations, I will be forced to agree with them that the death penalty is indeed an unnecessary sentence in today's society. The two points are as follows:

Evolution of the Species - John Couey, John Wayne Gacy, Ed Gein, and Charles Manson share something in common, they committed sadistic and premeditated murders of other human beings who had committed no slight or offense against them. They did it for their own disgusting reasons, and for their own sickening pleasure. This behavior is detrimental to the promulgation and continuation of a species, as if members of said species are allowed to run free, progress is stunted, barbarism encouraged, and violence escalated. Adding to this, the young thug who murders a convenience store clerk in the process of committing a robbery is just as bad as the one who kills the clerk and subsequently eats him. They both have killed their own kind for useless, unnecessary reasons. Nuance, blather, rhetoric, racist outcry, sob stories, and political correctness aside, there is no usefulness or productivity that can be expected from such a person. There is absolutely no necessity to maintain he (or she, if that be the case), living among us, and after conclusion of a fair trial, appropriate appeals, and voluminous (for such is our system today), reviews, they deserve and should be executed. If anyone can prove that there is a necessity to keeping them alive, please do so.

Economics - Even more compelling is the argument when economics are factored. If they killer is between the ages of 18-65, then combined with the average time spent on "death row", the culprit is still within the average life expectancy in the United States. Why is this important? Simply, (though liberals and retards will claim otherwise), the cost of keeping this person alive is more than the cost of executing justice. I pay taxes (American ones, by the way), and I think it is outrageous that I should pay to feed, clothe, house, guard, and provide luxuries for men who have raped and killed little girls (Couey, countless others), mass murdered innocents (BTK killer, Gacy, … many others), or slaughtered while high or simply stupid (thug killer of convenience store clerk, nearly innumerable). If the killer is 20 (possibly convenience store murderer), then I have made a healthy and considerable saving, by executing him at 29. If he is 45 (many serial killers), I still have made a notable expense reduction by not keeping him alive merely to please his family, the faint of heart, and the political professional mourners. Anyone who can prove that it would cost less to hand out sentences of life without parole, please do so.

(I will be leaving on an extended military mission, and will temporarily be unable to respond. However, if anyone should find evidence that economically and evolutionarily [word of my invention, I know - to preemt the semantic pouncers] it is a good thing to keep murderers around, I will read their data with the utmost enthusiasm.)

Timber will surprised to find himself described as a flaming liberal foreigner. I'll happily cop to being a foreigner.

Get better soon, Lusatian.

Sigh.

I don't intend to research an answer Lusatian's post. However, I have read articles for many years stating that they spend much more on death row prisoners than life without parole prisoners.

Persons like Manson are permanently removed from the gene pool and from having interaction with the population in general, so, how can they play a continuing role in evolution?

At least by applying life without parole mistakes can be reversed.

Typical liberal response: When confronted with simple question (and unable to convolute the issue), ignore topic completely, pounce on most insignificant - to the debate in question - point, then attempt to add witticism to appear condescending or enlightened.

I'll try to get better Beth. Enjoy Canada.

In this case, why not execute everyone who is found guilty of any crime? That would rid the species of even more problematic members, and save even more prison costs. If you truly believe what you're saying, Lusitian, why are you so timid in your conclusions?

Lusatian--

Everyone hopes for your safety.

I, for one, agree with your statement of value of the lives of child-rapers, and sociopaths. If we have no feelings, or code of behavior ourselves, killing them would be the most efficient response to their crimes.

Housing them and coming out of pocket to feed and clothe them is inefficient, and unfair to me. They wreck lives of innocent people, and we pay for them to live.

It's not so much what we think of them that presses us to keep them alive. It's what we think of ourselves. (Or maybe I should just speak for myself.)

I don't want to be responsible for killing someone, no matter what I think of them.

Just one explanation.

It is not certain that it is cheaper to execute them. Tens of millions get spent on appeals, most of which are required by state legal codes. Simply housing them for 40 or 50 years may in fact be cheaper.

Shooting them after trial would be even cheaper.

Yet, I resist.