This is reasonable. Death by legal injection is as
about humane as it gets. More often, it is more
humane than the evil treatment that victims receive.

The Death Penalty the scourge on society. Someday we too will become enlightened once and for all to the ultimate in hypocrisy the Death Penalty really is.

Larry Mohr

Larry,

And just what should we do with these pieces of shit?

Life Without parole naturally.

Larry Mohr

I will bet that you or yours have not had a violent crime committed against them/you? If you had, I am sure you would feel dfferent.

Larry, speaking of hypocrisy, you are the ultimate poster child. How can you say that you are against the death penalty when you support the right for women to have abortions? Unlike a murderer on death row, unborn children have committed no crimes whatsoever, yet you want to allow these women to kill their innocent babies. Please explain that one.

My Father and I have agreed that if God orbid such an occurance happens to either one of us the other will NOT seek the Death Penalty and that We will ask for Life Without Parole instead. We don't believe in becoming a killer ourselves. Nice try though.

Larry Mohr

Larry, I've only been here a few weeks but I am beginning to think a couple things. One, you like the responses you get from being so far out out there compared to most others here and Two, you hype up your "opinions" just to present the opposed view.

Frankly, I think you don't really mean half the shit you write and you you only write it because you want the attention. It's a shame, too - I want some real well thought out arguments against what I think and I was hoping to get them here but it's not happening. For being self-described as culturally and intellectually elite, Democrats often have a hard time arguing their points while staying on topic. But hey, why do they have to think when in their Marxist state everything is provided for them?

Have a nice day.

Saw a documentary years ago titled "MEAT" all about processing beef. Cattle were initially herded into a narrow passageway, then pneumatically head-shot. They don't even have to pay for bullets. It was instantaneous. Of course, they were immediately gaffed, hung, gutted and de-skinned. But hell, they didn't feel a thing.

R4E there is a difference between allowing a Woman the Right to Her reproductive privacy and that of the Death Penalty. Apples to Oranges once again.

Larry Mohr

The funny thing about "enlightened" societies is they tend to get their ass handed to them by barbarians, sooner or later.

The Enlightened only have the privilege of being enlightened so long as there are other people willing to kill to defend them.

Dying for a cause is easy - hundreds of people do it every day in the world to no effect. The true strength of your cause is your ability to kill for it.

You couldn't be more wrong if You tried Spielman. Oh and have a nice day.

Larry Mohr

As far as the death penalty, I think we should go back to more appropriate punishments. Hanging, firing squad, electric chair. Hell, even public stoning for child molesters is a good idea - true scum of the earth there.

Here's the thing - I don't think we have to be 99.999% certain before we execute someone - as long as we are maybe around 90% sure I'm cool with it. Here's the rationalization I often here - some people would rather let 99 guilty killers and rapists go free than kill one innocent. Crazy talk. I've got this to say - what if you have to be neighbors and raise your kids in the same neighborhood as those 99 guilty killers now walking free? What if those 99 rapists are working with your wife?

The "enlightened" point of view loses steam really fast as soon as you make it personal or it comes in contact with harsh reality. Enlightenment is a privilege earned by your ancestors through violence.

You know as I think of it. You REALLY don't want a dialouge do You Spielman?? If You did You would offered up something other than the Bullshit You spewed at Me. At least R4E gave something of a rebuttle. You on the other hand gave bloviating Excretamentals. But DO Have a nice day.

Larry Mohr

Spiel is right. Pussies talk, men do what needs to be done.

So You think taking a captive person and subsequently taking Him or Her to the Death Chamber is Manly?? If that is Your idea of what a Man is then call Me a pussy 8 days a week. I don't want ANY part of what You deam to be "Manly"

Larry Mohr

I'm not going to legalese manliness. It is what it is and one of the things that makes it great is that everybody defines it differently. There is a preponderance of highly correlated similarities though and one of those is being to do unpleasant things, when they have to be done whether you want to or not.

Women sit around bitching and ratchet-jawing about meaningless shit. Men get the job done.

The above is a generalization, of course - your mileage may vary.

Larry'
For aguemets sake lets say, one day you get married (i am sure the morman womenn Texas need husbands, and now is the perfect time for basement dwellers such as yourself to get girlfriends)and ave children. You come home and find your family and parents murdered and the criminal is still there, what do you do? Run away like a pussy or kill him?

Spiel, I like the way you think.

Is that why You find so many Women taking out the garbage and doing the Chores while the Men sit around drinking beer and bullshitting around with their buddies at the local bars?? Funny dat be.

Larry Mohr

Well in Your hypothetical they are all dead You call the Authorities since Your life is not threatened. To kill the murderer would make You a murderer Yourself. Since I own no weapon I would be on the phone with the Police Department.

Larry Mohr

"Women sit around bitching and ratchet-jawing about meaningless shit. Men get the job done.

The above is a generalization, of course - your mileage may vary."

Posted by Spielmannsfluch

It has jack to do with the reproductive plumbing, misogynist.

Killing someone on death row will not bring back the victim.

So what's the point?

Larry, you are a PUSSY.

""Women sit around bitching and ratchet-jawing about meaningless shit. Men get the job done."

Lily Litvak wants a word with you; Just one.

Skip Wellington Purely revenege and vengence NOTHING more.

Larry Mohr

Why Thank You 08. Do have a Nice day.

Larry Mohr

Keeping them imprisoned so they can kill other convicts is better? KILL THEM......

I would hate to have you next to me when it counted.

KILL THEM hmmmmmmm then You become a Killer and therefore You are no better than the Killer You are Killing. AMAZING.

Larry Mohr

Whatever, you lay down and take it then. I actually feel sorry for you.

Lethal injection? Huh. Too easy.

How about an eye for eye type death. The machete for an OJ type murder. Firing Squad for a shooting etc....

How about mandatory caning for stealing in this country? Forget jail. Can them good.

Just dealing back a little of their wrong doings.

larry,

I am sure that if you and yours were confronted on the street by a criminal element, you would role over and give them up.

"...we should go back to more appropriate punishments. Hanging, firing squad, electric chair. Hell, even public stoning for child molesters is a good idea..."

I like that Spiel but the "90%" comment is wrong. I think we can aim a little higher, say 100% and hope for 99.8%.

Larry,

For a left-leaning person you sure do hold a lot of moral certainty. Usually the mark of Liberalism is Randian moral equivalency where each culture/people/person is right in their own way and has the same rights as everybody else. You are arguing that killing is always wrong when it is obvious there are others each with an opinion as equally as valid as yours.

One of my biggest beefs with Liberals is their intolerance toward people who are intolerant. If you were truly tolerant of differences it wouldn't matter if we disagreed either in practice or in theory. But since it's not just tolerance but a push toward a more universal way of thinking - It Takes A Village - anybody who disagrees with the enlightened perspective is deemed either a misogynist or racist or a neo-con, whatever the hell that last one is (today's Republicans hold views similar to 50's Democrats),
and marginalized as a morale antique while the decadent slap themselves on the back for their inclusiveness.

On a semantics note, implementing the death penalty is not murder. Homicide, maybe, but not murder. Homicide is justifiable in many situations in every country of the world that has ever existed. There is not one single point about justifying the death penalty but rather people choose one that fits their predetermined position. Personally, I think the punishment should fit the crime.

It's also worth pointing out that more problems have been solved by pure, unadulterated violence than by anything else.

On another semantics note, I apologize for the reflexive pronoun use used above but it seemed appropriate at the time.

What is the Death Penalty?? The Premeditated Killing of another Human being. What winds up a person on Death Row?? The Premeditated Killing of another Human being. What is the difference besides one is Legal and one isn't. THAT is it.

Larry Mohr

Too bad we couldn't have executed that black guy who spent 26 years in jail for a murder he didn't commit. Would have saved us money and embarrassment..

north, nice try. how about we let hese convicts live with you. Would you let this man live with you now?

"What is the difference besides one is Legal and one isn't."

The point exactly.. The Death penalty is completely legal, and completely moral; murder is illegal and immoral.

The death penalty is applied after a trial and numerous appeals, and done as humanely as possible. Murder is done with none of those niceties. Society has the full right and even a responsibility to execute those that murder others. Arguments that try to draw a moral equivalence between the two are specious.

And the next argument I can feel coming "but it doesn't deter".. well, it certainly ends recidivism for the one we execute.

The Death Penalty is IMMORAL because You are taking a Human Life because that person took another life. How in Gods name can You say it is completely moral when You condemn the person that killed for killing?? You can not condemn someone and then perform the same punishment that You are condemning Him or Her for. The Heigth of Hypocrisy.

Larry Mohr

NMG NO-
I won't argue with the principle of your statement (maybe another time), but in that same state it is probably illegal to use the same drug sequence to put down a dog.

Personally I'd want to be certain, not just beyond a reasonable doubt because that is subjective, but beyond doubt that the crime was committed. This requires more diligence at the evidentiary level to preclude executing an innocent person.

Of course for those who find Jesus and truly believe there's the added benefit of skipping the line and going directly to Heaven.

"Death by legal injection is as about humane as it gets."

Humane murder. I love it. How to the fetal rights folks feel? herm

"How can you say that you are against the death penalty when you support the right for women to have abortions?"

And whoops! The self-styled pro-life gang weighs in for the death penalty. herm

"Democrats often have a hard time arguing their points while staying on topic. But hey, why do they have to think when in their Marxist state everything is provided for them?"

The DR's latest pundit from the far right is unable to distinguish between helping those who starve by the side of the road and "the marxist state." Marxism is a pleasant anachronism, no longer practiced. Sort of like Christianity. herm

"I don't think we have to be 99.999% certain before we execute ... maybe around 90% sure I'm cool with it."

And this is Republican justice. As Bush practiced it in Texas. As long as you're not one of the innocent 10 percent who are offed. herm

"How about mandatory caning for stealing in this country?"

Hell yes. And the dunking chair. And the stocks. And trial by tossing them into a pool. If they come up, they're guilty. Bring back the good old days. Reagan, Nixon, Goldwater, Hoover. herm

"The Death Penalty is IMMORAL because You are taking a Human Life because that person took another life."

Larry, one of the new Apostles Of Justice here says it's even okay if one out of ten we waste did NOT do it. Chew on that. herm

Posted by LarryMohr at 2008-04-16 07:43 PM

My Father and I have agreed that if God orbid such an occurance happens to either one of us the other will NOT seek the Death Penalty and that We will ask for Life Without Parole instead. We don't believe in becoming a killer ourselves. Nice try though.

How about freeing Charley Manson? He didn't kill anyone.

You said it "Johnson" Revenge. That is precisely why You guys support the Death Penalty. Revenge and Vengence NOTHING more. Getting down to brass tacks. It's never about justice nor about punishment. It's purely revenge and vengence motivated. Pure and Simple.

Larry Mohr

Herm I seen that. AMAZING isn't it??

Larry Mohr

Posted by LarryMohr at 2008-04-16 09:37 PM

What is the Death Penalty?? The Premeditated Killing of another Human being. What winds up a person on Death Row?? The Premeditated Killing of another Human being. What is the difference besides one is Legal and one isn't. THAT is it.

Posted by northguy3 at 2008-04-16 09:54 PM

Too bad we couldn't have executed that black guy who spent 26 years in jail for a murder he didn't commit. Would have saved us money and embarrassment..

Unfuckingbelievable. Johnson it is far from suicide it is Premeditated Killing of another Human Being. Those that support this Premeditated Killing are Killers themselves. Sorry but thems the facts.

Larry Mohr

Great deal folks!Now it is time for THREE STRIKES AND YOUR DEAD!Three violent felonies,and after the third conviction you are taken out back and a 22 bullet goes into the back of your head.....tee hee hee. HOW DO YOU LIKE THAT GORILLA AMERICANS!

DIXIE YESTERDAY
DIXIE TODAY
DIXIE FOREVER

Posted by herm at 2008-04-16 10:56 PM

"How can you say that you are against the death penalty when you support the right for women to have abortions?"

And whoops! The self-styled pro-life gang weighs in for the death penalty. herm

The death penalty needs some tweaking--

First it takes too long to kill the ones that truly did the crime.

But then there are hundreds getting off death row and out of prison altogether due to the Innocents Project.

That should give folks some pause--shouldn't it?

I go back and forth--I mean we have to be sure it is the right person.

And there are henious crimes that deserve death.

So for the sake of being consistent--I am more pro-life and against infantcide--unlike Larry--which makes no sense.

What can be said about abortion and the death penalty is that the practices seem to be geared towards eliminating black folks. Whether intentional or not--it seems like that from outside the fish bowl.

It is better to side on side of life.

Our society could become greater together by stopping infantcide and stopping the death penalty.

There could be exceptions--but then we should give life the ultimate choice here.

Murphy

The real issue here is whether the use of lethal injection creates a substantial risk of wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain, torture or lingering death. That is the standard our courts look to when reviewing methods of administering the death penalty. I'm wondering what people who oppose lethal injection should be done when executing murderers. Not executing them is not an answer - that is not what was at issue in this case. The issue was whether the method of execution used was cruel and unusual. Please start posting ideas as to a less cruel method of execution or STFU.

injection *think* should

Murphy

Infanticide is already against the law.

moron.

Maybe if we change the name from "Death Penalty" to "post-Partum Abortion" and vaccum their brain out through the nose,the Lib's can see the light!

RRyman

Maybe if you had an education you could see the light. When a society murders, then you belong to a murderous society.

The death penalty has not been shown to be a deterrent to others committting similar acts. What has been shown is that most civilized countries stopped the death penalty about the same time as they stopped sacrificing goats to invisiable sky fairies.

The death penalty is too costly on society, costing millions in appeals.

The death penalty is too easy on offenders since the punishment is over in seconds. It may even be an incentive for some--a call to being famous.

The death penalty has been shown to have killed innocent people.

But what do you care.

;-)

"The death penalty has not been shown to be a deterrent to others committting similar acts. "

Although it certainly may have prevented those folks from becoming repeat offenders.

B-Bob, all your points are accurate here.

But you don't get it.

Right Wingers like us just want the mother fucker dead.

All your arguments are valid, but they are all based on data collected before we perfected DNA evidence.

Now that we can pull DNA evidence, appeals are denied, and innocent people are not killed.

A growing anger among Americans is the demand for more executions, and as you know, B-Bob, they are putting people on death row for rape now in what? 5 states?

You rape a kid, you die. Its that simple.

Here is the standard to which death should be measured to a degree.

If you commit a crime where you could have been stopped by deadly force at any time, you are eligible for the death penalty.

because, B-Bob, the only difference between a police officer using deadly force, or a jury issuing it, is that the Police officer did it faster and cheaper.

So if some criminal say, started ass raping your daughter, who say, is 7. And you come home to it, you you shoot the guy in the head, you just enacted the death penalty. Versus, if you tell him to get off your daughter, and arrest him, and he gets it 20 years later with 20 lawyers and 2 M dollars.

You get it?

The liberal thought process is illogical. Because no death penalty by their standard means no killing is allowed, ever. Thus, no police should ever kill anyone, no civilians, no war ever, etc, and all you can do is arrest people that do harsh crimes.

So if your a liberal, and your "ok" with a police officer shooting a guy in the head that is doing armed bank robbery, then you have to be for executing that guy if hes arrested.

Anything else is irrational. Its the same thing, just delayed.

Kuma

This is the exact punishment given to a dog who has commited the crime of being born a stray or abandoned by their owner. So, lethal injection of murderers isn't really the death penalty at all. We're just "euthanizing" the pieces of shit...

Oh goody.

Another argument where people who are pro-life claim that some should be put to death for their crimes while, on the other side of the fence, the people who are for abortion don't want you to kill a possible revenue stream.

Thanks for playing. You've all been very entertaining.

OK....We are pro-life because a new born child has the potential to change the world. They are innocent of any crime. They are a unique individual that deserves a chance at fullfillment. Whether they reach their potential is up the individual.

For those on death row, they had the opportunity to be creators, builders, to be a positive force in society.

Instead, they wasted that opportunity and broke the laws of humanity (because nobody is on death row that did not take the life of someone else - you can argue that some are there have been convicted falsely - but no system is perfect.)

To allow them to live means that you and I have to pay to feed and maintain them - money and resources that could be going to some other cause.

So removing them from the planet protects others, provides an ultimate punishment (if I can kill someone, still live, have someone take care of me, get medical care, and have a chance to resume my life later - What is the down side?) which acts to deter similar acts.

That is why you can be both Pro Life and Pro Death Penalty - The first is innocent - the other had their chance and threw it away by harming others.

If prison was actually prison and the inmates actually feared the inside then yea, i would say life without parole is a good thing over the death penalty.

HOWEVER, thanks to the, THESE PEOPLE NEED TO BE REHABILITATED CROWD.. We have Adult Daycare now instead of prison.

Hard Labor, Chain gangs, let these pieces of shit do the jobs that the states needs done. Let them do jobs like pickup trash on the side of the road for 16 hours a day. Make them pay the state for being there. Set a price per day that they have to repay to the state for being placed in jail. Stuff like that

If you have nothing and got to jail and get 3 hot meals a day, a bed, a shower daily, free access to books, porn(thanks to liberals even child molesters can get this in prison), TV, movies, free college, etc.. HOW IN THE HELL is this a deterrent.

Until we make prisons that deter crime, Give them the death penalty and spare the public...

Good. I do wish they would have recommended battery acid, though. It's a lot cheaper and a good way to recycle and save the fragile Earth.

The true strength of your cause is your ability to kill for it.

Posted by Spielmannsfluch


Jesus taught us that right?

Execution should be done like this - there is a lottery in the state carrying out the execution. The lucky winner will get a 3-day, 2-night stay at the Motel 6 closest to the prison. The day of the execution the lottery winner and their guest will be taken to Denny's for all-you-can-eat pancakes, then it's on to the killing room. The prisoner will be strapped to a gurney, and the lottery winner will spin a wheel to see which method will be used -hammer, dull steak knife, shotgun, or drill.

I don't think we have to be 99.999% certain before we execute someone - as long as we are maybe around 90% sure I'm cool with it.

I am sure that if you were part of the 10% you would not be "cool" with it.

Or would you be in favor of dying for a less than perfect system just because revenge killing feels so good?

Life Without parole naturally.

Posted by LarryMohr

I guess we could turn them loose inside the prison so they could kill the other inmates.

"The death penalty has not been shown to be a deterrent to others committting similar acts. "

Posted by Danforth

That is because it is uaualy 20 years later that it happens and everyone has forgotten what the crime was.

Give the gentelman a fair trial and then hang the guilty SOB before sun-down if the DMA evidence is there.

"That is because it is uaualy 20 years later that it happens and everyone has forgotten what the crime was."

No, that's because once dead, it's much tougher to murder someone else.

The death penalty is too costly on society, costing millions in appeals.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob

What does it cost to house a violent prisoner for 50 years?

If there is execlent DNA evidence why should there be so many appeals?

Send Bush and Cheney then for execution after a mock trial. A small price to pay for the misery they've heaped on our country and the world. Besides, its their cup of tea.

Random murder and rape can never compare to wholesael slaughter with our weapons of mass destruction. Shrub's daddy and all the Iran/Contra co-conspirators deserve the same treatment. Execution should be reserved for treason and mass murder rather than criminality born of desperation and/or insanity.

"Newsom was repeatedly raped and then blindfolded, gagged, arms and feet bound and his head covered. Barefoot, he was either led or dragged outside the house to a set of nearby railroad tracks, where a gun was placed to the back of his head and fired. He was shot twice more, once in the neck and once in the back. His body was then set afire, she said.

Christian's death would come only after hours of sexual torture, Mileusnic-Polchan testified.

"It's much more than a simple sexual assault," she said. "It's extreme."

Christian suffered horrific injuries to her vagina, anus and mouth. She was not only raped but savaged with "an object," the doctor testified. She was beaten in the head. Some type of chemical was poured down her throat, and her body, including her bleeding and battered genital area, likely scrubbed with the same solution - all while Christian was alive, the forensic expert said.

She was then "hog-tied," with curtains and strips of bedding, her face covered tightly with a small white trash bag and her body stashed inside five large trash bags before being placed inside a large trash can and covered with sheets, Mileusnic-Polchan testified.

Christian died slowly, suffocating, the medical examiner said.



Spare the animals!"
--KERRIN57

KiLLinG the Guy Who dId thiS woULD bE the UltimAte HypocRisy!!!11!

Sincerely,
LarryMohr

"By his conduct, he has forfeited his right to live."

Excuse me, but who grants that right? And who has the right to decide who has the right to live? herm

"Do you consistently support life by from your perspective, opposing both the death penalty for convicted murderers and the murder of innocent children in esse, or do you consistently support both the death penalty for convicted murderers and innocent children in esse?"

Fair question, if somewhat contrived, John. I oppose killing human beings. Murderers are STILL human, and killing then reduces ME to their level. Fetuses are potential humans, but are still a few factors short of "living." Like breathing. Like thinking. Preventing them from becoming people is sad, sometimes, but hardly murder. Answer your question? What's "esse"? herm

Reading through the "pro-life" garbage convinces me that these people want life only up to birth. After birth you're subject to hunger, disease and if you made a fatal mistake somewhere, execution. Now these self-styled "pro-lifers" try to tell us they're doing Jesus' work. I presume they can show me something scripturally relevant. herm

"If you commit a crime where you could have been stopped by deadly force at any time, you are eligible for the death penalty."

So you better not interfere with the cop writing you a parking ticket. herm

The death penalty is too costly on society, costing millions in appeals.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob

The feds spent 7.25 billion to house 181,110 prisoners in 2005. The majority are for drug offenses. that is almost $64k per year.

If we hold a murder for 20 years for all the appeals, that cost to the prison system is almost $1.3 million which is included in the cost you reference.

If we have good DNA evidence and execute him right after his trial the prison cost would be very little but if we hold him for 50 years the cost would be $3.1 million.

Keep in mind these are average prisoner costs, not violent offender costs.

I don't understand how you can say the death penalty is so costly. What is costly is all the appeals we allow and not just to the ones condemed to die.

The only issue i take with the death penalty is that no one is right all the time. Which means we have kill innocent people with it. It makes me sick to my stomach to believe that Innocent people have died to give other people a false sense of security. So can someone who supports the death penalty explain as a chirstian how can one defend a practice that in the past has taken innocent lives, just so they can feel safe????

The liberal thought process is illogical. Because no death penalty by their standard means no killing is allowed, ever. Thus, no police should ever kill anyone, no civilians, no war ever, etc, and all you can do is arrest people that do harsh crimes.
Posted by Kuma at 2008-04-17 03:29 AM

Nah! It's ok as long as they're not born yet.

@Spielmannsfluch
I'd prefer that they be drawn and quartered publicly.
Cruel and unusual punishment should not apply to those condemned to death.

It should be excruciating, like it was for their victims. In fact they should die the same way their victims did, torture and all where applicable, within 24 hours of the conviction.

They got their speedy trial, they should get a speedy punishment, like the old west.

No appeals. It's time for the bullshit to stop.

@herm
The courts have the right because the law says so. Til the law changes they'll continue to have the right.

@LARRY MOHR
ROFL. Entertaining as always.

-Viz

It takes a certain shallowness of intellect to be scandalized by the due process killing of proven criminals but fight very hard to to murder millions of indesputably innocent children every year.

That combination of positions is, in and of itself, so logically inconsistent that it robs the holder of such a position of any semblance of intellectual credibility.

I couldn't get any dumber of a combination of answers than if I consulted a Magic 8 ball. In fact, I'd at least have some statistical chance of a logically consistent set of answers from it.

"The feds spent 7.25 billion to house 181,110 prisoners in 2005. The majority are for drug offenses. that is almost $64k per year."

That has nothing to do with a death row inmate and the cost of appeals



"If we hold a murder for 20 years for all the appeals, that cost to the prison system is almost $1.3 million which is included in the cost you reference."

I have no idea what you are talking about here. At 64k a year for 20 years is $1,280,000.00. There is no cost of appeals in that number. Add about 3 million more for appeals.




"If we have good DNA evidence and execute him right after his trial the prison cost would be very little but if we hold him for 50 years the cost would be $3.1 million."

DNA isn't the sole factor in a decision. I guess you forget the DNA and OJ Simpson. DNA can be planted. If you think turning the courts into Kangaroo Courts is a good thing, it is sad for the future of our country.



"Keep in mind these are average prisoner costs, not violent offender costs.

I don't understand how you can say the death penalty is so costly. What is costly is all the appeals we allow and not just to the ones condemed to die."

It is costly because of the appeals. With no death penalty, no appeals costing millions. Appeals for lesser crimes are far less frequent, and far less costly.

Response to 726:

"I don't think we have to be 99.999% certain before we execute someone - as long as we are maybe around 90% sure I'm cool with it.

I am sure that if you were part of the 10% you would not be "cool" with it.

Or would you be in favor of dying for a less than perfect system just because revenge killing feels so good?

Posted by 726"

Most people arrested for violent felonies are not first time offenders, have committed violent crimes in the past, have committed said crimes without being caught and likely will do so in the future. It's a very low probability of wrong place/wrong time. Those in and of itself mean a lower probability than that 10% actually being that number in true costs.

But to _answer_ the question I'll say that as written the law says something most people here dislike and we have to live with it no matter the percentages. It won't matter if I become the one in ten or the one in a million - vast chances are it won't happen to me because I do not apply to the cases I present in the preceding paragraph and if it does, the actual chances I got in that situation in the first place no longer matter.

They have already freed people who where innocent and still found guilty of raping and killing people. What i am hearing from the pro life groups is that it is never ok to kill someone who is innocent unless it makes me feel better. With the death penalty innocent people have been killed and you seem fine with that. I am just wondering how you can be OK with innocent people dying. I tend to believe murders should be locked up alone Monte Cristo style for the rest of thier days. But i cant agree to have people kill because even thought it is a long shot that person might be innocent. As a christian i can never accept killing an innocent.

fen, what happened to 'an eye for an eye'?

Which is more crule, execution or solitary for the rest of their life?

If the person is realy guilty, why should we spend millions to keep them alive for the rest of their natural life?

Here's the problem with keeping them alive: They can kill again.

One example: Kenneth McDuff.

But the rules of evidence must be more stringent than they are now, since innocent people have clearly been put on death row.

"The death penalty has not been shown to be a deterrent to others committting similar acts. "



If I remember this correctly...they asked death row inmates the question. What do you think these animals would say?

The hell it isn't a deterrent.

If Texas had snuffed McDuff in the 70's, four women might be alive today.

Rape victims have incorrectly identified their attackers.
Necessarily the rules of evidence must be really tight.
Fact is some folks need killing; McDuff is my poster boy.

Zat shows twice why this dialog is pointless:

"The hell it isn't a deterrent."

"Fact is some folks need killing."

Yes, and fetuses are people, Iraq had WMDs and history will immortalize Bush. herm

Herm

Does McDuff not get your attention?

Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable....

I won't pretend to stand on moral highground and denounce the death penalty as murder.

Some folks deserve to die, and If I walked in on some monster raping or killing a family member or friend I would have no qualms about pulling the trigger.

My problem is with the all to human justice system. 90% guilty rate is just asinine, as is 99.9%. Executing 1 innocent person just isn't worth it to me when we have alternatives.

The options here, in a reasonable debate or

1. Death Penalty
2. Life in prison without possibility of parole.

Communities can be very persuasive over their elected officials when a horrible crime occurs. Emotions run high and DA's, judges, police are hard pressed to find the guilty party and "Stringem up". Thats not to say any of them are corrupt or that the justice system is bad, just that it is all very human.

IF we had a justice system that was enabled with the certainty of the divine I would have no moral qualms with it, but I have no desire to stain my hands with the blood of the innocent just to feed someones desire for vengeance.

Prisoners can be set free if new evidense is discovered, theres no reset button on the death penalty.

Once again: We are pro-life because a new born child has the potential to change the world. They are innocent of any crime. They are a unique individual that deserves a chance at fullfillment. Whether they reach their potential is up the individual.

Once alive can people have a hard time? Sure...but in the US if you work hard, save your money, invest well and basically do the right things you have an easy life compared to the rest of the world.

For those on death row, they had the opportunity to be creators, builders, to be a positive force in society.

Instead, they wasted that opportunity and broke the laws of humanity (because nobody is on death row that did not take the life of someone else - you can argue that some are there have been convicted falsely - but no system is perfect.)

Would a caveat that requires some DNA evidence be a help before you could exersize the death penalty? I would go for that - along with a reduction in the number of appeals that cost us millions.

To allow them to live means that you and I have to pay to feed and maintain them - money and resources that could be going to some other cause.

So removing them from the planet protects others, provides an ultimate punishment (if I can kill someone, still live, have someone take care of me, get medical care, and have a chance to resume my life later - What is the down side?) which acts to deter similar acts.

That is why you can be both Pro Life and Pro Death Penalty - The first is innocent - the other had their chance and threw it away by harming others.

Sniper why do demand Blood??? Also as a Christian i Believe in Following Christ Laws

Matthew 5:3839: You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.

To me This says that an eye for an eye is not Jesus's Law Sniper, so i realy hope your not a christian because if you are it must be hard having never actually read the bible to follow it.

Sniper why do demand Blood??? Also as a Christian i Believe in Following Christ Laws

Matthew 5:3839: You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.

To me This says that an eye for an eye is not Jesus's Law Sniper, so i realy hope your not a christian because if you are it must be hard having never actually read the bible to follow it.

Hypothetical.

100 US Marines in Iraq are being fired upon from a building containing 100 bad guys with machine guns with one innocent six year old child in the building.

You've lost 20 Marines so far. You are down to 80.
You have no place to run. You are losing 1 soldier every 10 seconds.

Do you blow up the building, killing 100 bad guys and 1 innocent? Or do you consider that the one life to kill would be murder and, since that is wrong, you must sacrifice the remaining soldiers in your unit?

You have to decide? You are either against murder or for it. The moment you make an exception, you'll understand why people support the death penalty. It is an exception.

Pet, is it an answer not to be in Iraq in the first place? herm

"We are pro-life because a new born child has the potential to change the world. "

FO, we're not talking about newborn kids. We're talking about fetuses that have the potential of becoming newborn kids if the "mother" does not opt to interrupt the pregnancy. herm

"Learning and Memory in the Womb Along with the ability to feel, see, and hear comes the capacity to learn and remember."

LOD, you stretch even MY credulity past the breaking point by postulating some zygote meditating in the womb: "I wonder if ontogeny really does recapitulate phylogeny." Fetuses really lack any such point of reference. Let me know if all this is a little too abstruse for you. herm

"Learning and Memory in the Womb Along with the ability to feel, see, and hear comes the capacity to learn and remember."

LOD, you stretch even MY credulity past the breaking point by postulating some zygote meditating in the womb: "I wonder if ontogeny really does recapitulate phylogeny." Fetuses really lack any such point of reference. Let me know if all this is a little too abstruse for you. herm

"by postulating some zygote meditating in the womb"
--HERM

Strawman. Sad, pathetic, and characteristically "herm".

"Let me know if all this is a little too abstruse for you."
--HERM

Only in the sense that I'm struggling to figure out what it has to do with my link.

Hypothetical.

100 US Marines are confined to a small area in Washington DC and are being fired upon from a building containing 100 bad guys with machine guns with one innocent six year old child in the building.

You've lost 20 Marines so far. You are down to 80.
You have no place to run. You are losing 1 soldier every 10 seconds.

Do you blow up the building, killing 100 bad guys and 1 innocent? Or do you consider that the one life to kill would be murder and, since that is wrong, you must sacrifice the remaining soldiers in your unit?

You have to decide? You are either against murder or for it. The moment you make an exception, you'll understand why people support the death penalty. It is an exception.

Petrous

World opinion among "civilized" countries is that the death penalty is barbaric. I agree on some level, but I'm against the death penalty because it is too easy, too costly per prisoner executed, and sometimes we get the wrong guy.

This is reasonable. Death by legal injection is as
about humane as it gets. More often, it is more
humane than the evil treatment that victims receive.

Posted by dean_buvia at 2008-04-16 07:18 PM | Reply |

What the victims endure in relation to the executed is not the point. The punishments inflicted by the law should always be humane.

Hypothetical.

100 US Marines in Iraq are being fired upon from a building containing 100 bad guys with machine guns with one innocent six year old child in the building.

You've lost 20 Marines so far. You are down to 80.
You have no place to run. You are losing 1 soldier every 10 seconds.

Do you blow up the building, killing 100 bad guys and 1 innocent? Or do you consider that the one life to kill would be murder and, since that is wrong, you must sacrifice the remaining soldiers in your unit?

You have to decide? You are either against murder or for it. The moment you make an exception, you'll understand why people support the death penalty. It is an exception.

Posted by Petrous at 2008-04-18 11:43 AM | Reply |

Except a combat situation, and your average homicide are not even in the same league. two completely different situations, when used as logical comparisons fails horribly. Most fucking people haven't even been in such a situation, much less use it as reasoning to support a belief.

Although it certainly may have prevented those folks from becoming repeat offenders.

Posted by Danforth at 2008-04-17 03:20 AM | Reply |

Baseless speculation.

Herm,

Right - if the mother does do anything the kid becomes a living human. She has to do something to stop it - which is killing it.

Why is that not murder? There has to be action taken.

In the case of the death penalty - we are also taking action to stop the life...but it is a guilty life that has taken life.

So...pro life - the kid is innocent - but someone killed it. Pro Death penalty - the person had their chance and abused it by taking the life of another.

"Someday we too will become enlightened once and for all to the ultimate in hypocrisy the Death Penalty really is."

I used to be 100% in favor of the death penalty. Now I am not so sure. But the arguement that has turned me around is that innocent people are sometimes sentenced to death. The number of people who have been let go in recent years has really surprised me.

But the old arguement that the death penalty is "hypocritical" never held water for me. You have to think in absolutes to the point of willful ignorance in order to equate torture and murder for personal gratification with the execution of horrific criminals using the most humane methods available.

If the human error that allows innocent people to be found guilty could be removed from the equation, I'd be all for the death penalty.

FO, we're not talking about newborn kids. We're talking about fetuses that have the potential of becoming newborn kids if the "mother" does not opt to interrupt the pregnancy. herm

Posted by herm at 2008-04-18 01:33 PM


To damm bad Herms mom didnt opt to interrupt her pregnancy.

Herm, we know that you are a jackass but are you a young uneducated jackass or a crusty old jackass?

"Herm, we know that you are a jackass but are you a young uneducated jackass or a crusty old jackass?"

An aging one who probably had twice the education you had, SOL, and about eight times the life experiences. And I don't have to stand on my head (George Orwell called it Doublethink) to be "pro-life" when it comes to fetuses and "pro-death" when it comes to humans who broke a law or sit on oil lands.

"To damm bad Herms mom didnt opt to interrupt her pregnancy."

This is the typical syntactically/spelling screwed up shit that the Far Right regurgitates with regularity. We used to hear it while escorting women into the clinic past the bloody fetus photo wavers. We shook our heads and asked them how stupid they can be. herm

Infanticide is already against the law.

moron.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-04-17 02:42 AM


BB--

Abortion is infantcide--this country alone kills 1 million babies every year since the Roe decision.

And there is no due process for babies like there is for killers and such before they are put to death.

I guess you are guilty of Double-think--see post above...

Murphy

"Abortion is infantcide."

No, it's not even infanticide. I've told you that, but you never listen.

"And there is no due process for babies."

There are no babies. But there's no due process for malignancies, appendixes and tonsils either. herm

Are you comparing a baby in the womb to an appendix and tonsils?

Are you kidding? --Right--you are kidding?


Murphy

"Baseless speculation."
Posted by Knighthawk

Don't be an idiot: pure math.

The Death Penalty the scourge on society. Someday we too will become enlightened once and for all to the ultimate in hypocrisy the Death Penalty really is.

Larry Mohr

Posted by LarryMohr




and what of the little girl WHO LIVED ABOUT 4 BLOCKS FROM ME AT THE TIME who was taken by a prick named ennis and was taken to the attic and beaten and raped and maybe even raped after she was dead. she was TEN YEARS OLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and what of the little girl whose PIECE OF SHIT parents beat her, then bound her tiny little arms with duc tape and then put the tap over her mouth, put her in a metal box of some sort AND THREW HER INTO GALVESTON BAY........if they had thrown puppies or kittens away like that, you ane others would have wanted to THROW THEIR ASS IN JAIL FOR A HUNDRED YEARS.........

and what of elizabeth pena and her friend who just happened upon a gang ritual and who were tied on a stake and attacked and raped and stabbed and strangles with a belt and whoes bodies were so disfigured they had to go to dental records to identify them.......

and I could go on and on and I know it wouldnt matter to you, LARRY or many others of you..but it does to me.

KILL THE MOTHERFUCKERS.....and do it NOW!!!!!!!!!!!

and as always........

texas ...the number one place for 'rehabilitation'

we can guarantee that you will be rehabilitated. you will NEVER KILL SOMEONE AGAIN!!!!!!!!

you know though,
I may have a better idea.

take one of the asswipe mexicans who killed
liz pena and just drop him off.
drop him off on the corner right by the house of liz pena's father.
he might not even hit the pavement alive.

BL2... Noones arguing for letting these people go. As far as I can tell the "alternative" offered up by the "bleeding hearts" is life without parole. you know THROW THEIR ASS IN JAIL FOR HUNDRED YEARS!!

Let go of the "is it moral to kill someone?" argument and tell me why we should risk killing an innocent man when we could just lock him up in the chance that future evidence may vindicate him?


Once again, I have no problems taking a life if it is deemed neccessary, I'm just not convinced the death penalty is neccessary.

Posted by herm at 2008-04-17 01:10 PM

"By his conduct, he has forfeited his right to live."

Excuse me, but who grants that right? And who has the right to decide who has the right to live? herm

Fair question, if somewhat contrived, John. I oppose killing human beings. Murderers are STILL human, and killing then reduces ME to their level. Fetuses are potential humans, but are still a few factors short of "living." Like breathing. Like thinking. Preventing them from becoming people is sad, sometimes, but hardly murder. Answer your question? What's "esse"? herm

As to those of you who oppose the death penalty because there may be errors and its imposition after execution is irrevocable, the same argument might be made concering driving cars, or doing construction work, or many other undertakings. Life is fraught with peril, and innocent people often suffer undeserved harm. But unfortunately, that's the nature of our existence this side of the vale of tears.

Posted by Johnson

Which is only valid if you can make an argument that the death penalty has an advantage over it's alternative. It has been shown to be just as expensive as life in prison and not work as a deterrent to future crime. So outside of fulfilling some societal need for vengeance, what makes it the superior option?


To say "welp, sometimes innocent people just gotta die" is asinine when you have viable alternatives.

The risk/reward quota just isn't met here.

By your logic I could pile the kids up on the handlebars of the Harley to takem to the doctor. Sure I could just use the mini-van...but where would be the fun in that?

What fascinating arguments for fascism while listening to Raymond Scott's "What makes a melon ball bounce? A melon ball bounce? Sprite has the tingle that counts! Oh, honeydew!"

I thought someone would have argued for death with dignity by now. Terminal conditions deserve at least as much planning and concern as how yokel States bbq someone in their pajamas..

I get the impression that Spielmannsfluch and 08r4ever would be tucking in each others bibs.

Supremes allow lethal injections?

Ooh! ...Do John Roberts first!!

Wot d'ya mean he's not sick?

Have you read any of his decisions?

The guy aint at all well.

Better to be safe than sorry. The "Bring out yer dead" guy aint due back fer another coupla weeks and there's no point having him stinking up the place till then.

Kidding and MPFC references aside fer a moment?

Lethal Injection on convicted murderers as it's currently done is Bullshit and it needs to be made more humane and quicker.

Spud, after reading the headline initially, was hoping that the Supremes had okayed euthanasia in the case of terminally ill patients.

Euthanasia makes nothing but sense.

It's the only moral decision to come to at the end of the day and it's good that more people are coming around to this point of view.

The inhumane and cowardly death of Terri Schiavo still haunts a lot of people.

As well it should.

Be Well.