Good advertisement for the death penalty.

What a dumb shit.

Asshole get's off on capital murder, because they don't have the evidence, so he puts it in writing for the prosecutor.

As much as this waste of DNA deserved to die, I still have to stay on record as being opposed to the death penalty.

I just wish they would build a prison where you put people like this guy, in a small concrete room, by themselves, and lock the door. One meal a day, and absolutely nothing else. Just warehouse them until they die.

On another note, I didn't think any state still had the electric chair...

I'm all for televising the death penalty, it would be a much better deterrent.

Batty and Barber are both right. The most appalling part of the death penalty is that it reduces us to the level of the person we murder. And disgusting as it is, murders as part of the justice process SHOULD be televised. With proper breaks for pharmaceutical commercials, of course. herm

Powell, believing he was free from execution, proceeded to write a taunting, profanity-filled letter from behind bars to Ebert, laying out explicit details of the crime unknown to investigators at the time.

"Since I have already been indicted on first degree murder and the Va. Supreme Court said that I can't be charged with capital murder again, I figured I would tell you the rest of what happened on Jan. 29, 1999, to show you how stupid all of y'all ... are," wrote Powell, who is white.

#3 herm... is that really the kind of world you really want our kids to grow up in?

I don't.

Killing him is too easy.

You assume there is a hell.

What if there isn't?

Make him stay alive in a 10x10 room and think about what he has done for 99 years.

Make him stay alive in a 10x10 room and think about what he has done for 99 years.

THIS.

Agreed. Killing is too good fer the likes of this asswipe.

Powell, believing he was free from execution, proceeded to write a taunting, profanity-filled letter from behind bars to Ebert, laying out explicit details of the crime unknown to investigators at the time.

Not just a sadistic killer but, apparently, none too bright as well.

Strange little factoid.

People on death row are never put to death on a Saturday or Sunday.

America doesn't kill prisoners on the Sabbath by law.

Be Well.

it wouldn't be moral to kill on the weekend

Donnie, we're on the same side. I do not want my grandkids in a world that still kills people to show people that killing people is wrong. I assume many thing, but existence of a hell is not one. I think 99 years in a cell, maybe a clear plastic one, is the civilized way to go. I recommended that for Adolf Eichmann; Tel Aviv did not listen. herm

Herm,

I agree with you for once! Actualy if we televised the death penalty not only would it be more of a deterent but I imagine that we would be done with that barbaric practice post haste.

I think 99 years in a cell, maybe a clear plastic one,

liberals and the aclu would newer stand still for that inhumane treatment.

liberals and the aclu would newer stand still for that inhumane treatment.

#11 | Posted by semtex111

but we allow he "State" to kill for revenge?

yeah

great lesson there.

Thx herm I was worried about you for a sec...

People on death row are never put to death on a Saturday or Sunday.

America doesn't kill prisoners on the Sabbath by law.

Be Well.

#7 | Posted by dethspud

it wouldn't be moral to kill on the weekend

#8 | Posted by NotMyRealName

where is that IRONY flag

I think 99 years in a cell, maybe a clear plastic one,

liberals and the aclu would newer stand still for that inhumane treatment.

#11 | Posted by semtex111 at 2010-03-19 06:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

how long are we going to keep them there after they die. how many 117 year olds do you know?

how long are we going to keep them there after they die. how many 117 year olds do you know?

#13 | Posted by NotMyRealName

hmmm plug them into a machine to keep them alive and put toothpicks to hold their eyes open and play Glenn Beck reruns.

Should do the trick.

You knew what I meant right? Life in prison without parole.

I just wish they would build a prison where you put people like this guy, in a small concrete room, by themselves, and lock the door. One meal a day, and absolutely nothing else. Just warehouse them until they die.

On another note, I didn't think any state still had the electric chair...

#2 | Posted by Roy_Batty at 2010-03-19 10:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

But that is really not how it works. They get books, TV, magazines. Exercise.

I think he should have been locked in a cell with a 6'6 300lb black man named Bubba. I think that would have made him remorseful.

what a lowlife

in the end everyone will be famous for fifteen minutes

I just wish they would build a prison where you put people like this guy, in a small concrete room, by themselves, and lock the door. One meal a day, and absolutely nothing else. Just warehouse them until they die.

That's basically what happens in end-stage dementia or after a severe stroke if you don't have a living will.

Ironically, what is viewed as a terrible punishment by many is, according to Catholics, a demonstration of their moral high-ground commitment to life.

Snoofy are you speaking from experience there???

I just wish they would build a prison where you put people like this guy, in a small concrete room, by themselves, and lock the door. One meal a day, and absolutely nothing else. Just warehouse them until they die.

give them a computer and internet and you have some of the people here.

Natural selection is such an imperfect process, Look how long it took to catch up with this moronic criminal. If only it were a bit quicker. The Electric Chair! It's so sad most states don't have the nads to keep real capital punishment in place.

-----
Donnie, we're on the same side. I do not want my grandkids in a world that still kills people to show people that killing people is wrong. I assume many thing, but existence of a hell is not one. I think 99 years in a cell, maybe a clear plastic one, is the civilized way to go. I recommended that for Adolf Eichmann; Tel Aviv did not listen. herm

#9 | Posted by herm at 2010-03-19 06:46 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e-------

Perhaps it's not to late....if you don't have children yet.

Murdering a person who (allegedly) kills another
person is more wrong than the initial (alleged) crime.

1. Two wrongs don't make a right.
2. Killing killers don't bring back the dead.
3. It is not metaphysically certain he killed anyone.

R.I.P. Mr. Powell.

Be Well.

"Killing killers don't bring back the dead."

But paroling them adds to the list.

Some folks just need killing.

There be monsters.

Sell the fool into slavery. It's in the Constitution.

Then, he is the responsibility of the slave owner, not the public.

He gets sick, slaveowner.
Hungry, same.
Thirsty, same.

The money from the sale can be used to reduce the National Debt - we need every penny.

Plus, with slaves, they count towards the Census for the House. Illegal Aliens could count.

"Killing killers don't bring back the dead."

But paroling them adds to the list.

Some folks just need killing.

You trust a populous that doesn't believe in global warming to make that determination?

Now who's a dummy...

" 'Some folks just need killing.'

'You trust a populous that doesn't believe in global warming to make that determination?

-- No --

Now who's a dummy... "

Posted by snoofy at 2010-03-19 09:19 PM | Reply

But it's still true.

Sparta is a good model.

There is a unique species of cat that has arisen here.

Sparta is a good model.

Good model of what, exactly? Eugenics? Human servitude? Supremacy of the state over the individual?

I generally agree some people need killin.' I just don't see how anyone can trust the State to decide who. Pol Pot sure thought a lot of people needed killin', but there's mounting evidence he might have been wrong about one or two of them.

"Good model of what, exactly? Eugenics? Human servitude? Supremacy of the state over the individual?"

The antithesis of No Child Left Behind.

You will do well as compost.

Killing killers don't bring back the dead."
But paroling them adds to the list.
Some folks just need killing.

#24 | POSTED BY ZATOICHI AT 2010-03-19 08:27 PM | REPLY | FLAG:
Agreed my climatic doomsday soothsayer.

He was wrong. The people get the last laugh.

As much as this waste of DNA deserved to die, I still have to stay on record as being opposed to the death penalty.

As much as I'd like to be completely against the death penalty, people like this guy make it extremely difficult. Guilty as hell, completely unrepentant and he murdered a teenage girl and raped her 14-year-old sister because he hates interracial dating. Is there any doubt that he would've killed again if presented with the opportunity?

I think 99 years in a cell, maybe a clear plastic one,

liberals and the aclu would newer stand still for that inhumane treatment.

#11 | Posted by semtex111 at 2010-03-19 06:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Place liberals on the long list of things you know absolutely nothing about.

As much as I'd like to be completely against the death penalty, people like this guy make it extremely difficult.

I find it quite easy. This case represents a sample size of one, versus literally hundreds of wrongly convicted over at Innocence Project.
"One death is a tragedy" and all that.

That sometimes people need killin' does not justify the State's participation in the killin' business. (For Slippery Slope extrapolation, refer to Uncle Joe quote above.)

Now, if someone walked in on this scene and used lethal force to stop it, that would be a different story. That's how people who need killin' should get what's coming. Absent the passion and clear and present danger, there's no justification for taking a life. Unless, of course, you fancy yourself no better than the killer you're killing.

You will do well as compost.

Thanks, but I wonder if some of my dental work makes that not such a good idea. And there's a few other metal bits which might damage your mulcher.

What's rational? Execute only if there's absolutely no doubt of guilt. There was no doubt here. That seems fair.

"Now, if someone walked in on this scene and used lethal force....."

That would have been nice. But this gentleman, coward that he was, burned time and brain-power calculating when to strike the helpless when least prepared to know or fight back.

From what I can tell from what's been published about him, the only thing this SOB really cared about was his own skin.

Well, he doesn't own that any longer. That, also, seems fair.

Either you're okay with killing a defenseless human being in cold blood or you're not.

"Either you're OK with killing a defenseless human being or you're not....."

You're adamant the State should have no power to kill, but also argue that individuals always do---Either through "cold-blooded" (your term) deliberate murder or though "heat-of-the-moment" (also your term) defense of self or someone else. This is a contradiction you need to meditate upon.

But to the extent you really care about "defenselessness", the answer to you is this: Give the man a sword and place him in an enclosed area fifty yards from another man with a repeating rifle and tell him to do his best.

The odds the murderer is presented with would still be much, much better than the odds he permitted the women he raped and murdered. Surely fair.

You're adamant the State should have no power to kill, but also argue that individuals always do

I'm not sure where you're going with "always" but individuals do have the power, the capability to kill. I don't think I need to argue that point.

The State does and should have the power to kill. For example it was acceptable (if not optimal) to kill those Somali pirates pointing a gun at their hostage's head.

That's a completely different situation than killing a defenseless person, in State custody, confined to prison.

I don't agree with the death penalty, because there is absolutely no way that we as a society can be 100% sure that the alleged perpetrator actually committed the crime. So, no matter how egregious the crime and no matter how sure of guilt we think we are; it only takes convincing 12 jurors. Twelve "peers"...

We can never be SURE. Therefore, we can never know we aren't killing the wrong man (as we know for a fact we have done in the past). So, for the US to sanction prisoner executions whose guilt were determined in a KNOWN imperfect system is by far a worse crime than original crime, and has the possibility of touching any American...

However, I'm kind of glad this guy got processed through the system while it is still broken...

Paul Warner Powell-from the article: "Do you just hate yourself for being so stupid ... And, writing that letter to the DA?"

(FTFY)

"That's a completely different situation than killing a defenseless person...."

I offered you a solution for that. I note you didn't stand up and salute it.

People like this cretin should never be allowed to think that he's won. That's how this SOB obviously conceptualized rape and murder, as a game he won because he was just and only going to prison. Well, he sure was surprised.

If you let people like this win, other people like him will be encouraged to "win" as well. I know you don't like this line of reasoning, but it's nothing more than hard truth.

"We can never be SURE."

True...and exactly how much do you trust prosecutors? Investigators? Medical examiners? How would you like to have Mike Nifong prosecuting you if you were innocent?