NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/09/nichols.sentence.ap/index.html

Today's poll...did he deserve the death penalty?

I ask everyone take part in this, even though I know the majority of the answers will probably be "no".


Although my answer stays at a "yes"...and I hope he attempts to appeal, which can result in another attempt to give him the death penalty. But that's wishful thinking...


Your names are up there, explain yourselves as you post!

no one misses a chance to throw in their personal beliefs on controversial issues do they

*goes and kills a fetus just to spite you*

He deserves it alright. He should join his partner McVeigh forthwith.

Meh ... I don't believe in murder, legal or otherwise. No justification needed, I just do not believe anyone has the right to take another person's life - no matter what.

i vote NO because that was the decision of a jury of his peers, each of who had a reason to want to give him the death penalty.
they were there every day listening to the evidence
if they are unwilling to sentence him to death, thats good enough for me.

Nobody deserves to die, even him.

no the death penalty is letting him off easy. I never agreed with the death penalty. life in prison is much more torturous and is an actual punishment rather than putting people out of their misery and not giving them a chance to suffer for what they have done.

military is probably worse than prison, or at least just as bad, better food usually

i say just kill people who commit heinous crimes: murderers and rapists and the like
i dont care about people doing drugs, fuck them, the best way to punish them is make the drug legal and tax it,

keeping people in jail for the rest of their lives without parole isnt punishment, wow, you live in a jail, you dont have to work, your guaranteed food, outside time etc unless you screw up

lets just put them all in the military

no the death penalty is letting him off easy. I never agreed with the death penalty. life in prison is much more torturous and is an actual punishment rather than putting people out of their misery and not giving them a chance to suffer for what they have done.

Agreed, though I think the death penalty should be round just to get rid of the most dangerous ones. The ones who continue to harm society even while in prison. Then again that could be taken care of with better prisons.

i vote NO because that was the decision of a jury of his peers, each of who had a reason to want to give him the death penalty.
they were there every day listening to the evidence
if they are unwilling to sentence him to death, thats good enough for me.
not really, if you read the article, it said he evaded the death penalty because the jury had some conflicting arguments...

Yes, let us teach children that killing is wrong by killing the killer. What a great example we set.

The purpose of the death penalty is not to teach children that killing is wrong.

Killing is wrong. Period. 160+ people, 1 person, it doesn't make a difference. Morality is not a matter of size and the moral conscience that tells me what he did was wrong is the same one that tells me to kill him for it is just as wrong.

It still makes no sense. To punish killing by killing? Not a bit hypocritical?

How about, to remove psychotic killers from our midst? Killing them is in fact more humane than putting them in prison for life, and a lot cheaper, and you won't get repeat offenders.

It still makes no sense. To punish killing by killing? Not a bit hypocritical?

You're stating it wrong. The death penalty punishes MURDER (that pesky thing that is against the law) by the LAWFUL execution of the murderer. The two acts are in no way comparable.

P.S. - I saw this thread while checking my nation and it was displayed as "Terry Nichols escapes the dea". I about freaked!
http://home.earthlink.net/~vrwcagent/images/nichols_dea.png

How about, to remove psychotic killers from our midst? Killing them is in fact more humane than putting them in prison for life, and a lot cheaper, and you won't get repeat offenders.

And that is simply a justification and rationalization for state-sponsored murder. It's not cheaper to kill someone and it simply shows that the state has no more respect for life than the killer does.

P.S. - I saw this thread while checking my nation and it was displayed as "Terry Nichols escapes the dea". I about freaked!

LOL! Yikes ...

Yes, let us teach children that killing is wrong by killing the killer. What a great example we set.
no, we're teaching children that crimes as bad as this do not go unpunished. That we live in a society that does not tolerate criminals that kill other people.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! Jail is a far worse penalty than death. First off, the death penalty serves only one purpose in an atheists point of view: redemption. The death penalty is based on the "knowledge" that there is a hell. Unfortunately, only the european religions ever believed in the possibility of a torturous afterlife (christian, greek, roman, etc.)

So putting the idea of religious redemption aside (as it should be in the US gov't) Jail is far worse (if you are not a homosexual masochist) because of all of the violent rapes (especially for a guy like nichols, he's bound to become someone's bitch first day).

Honestly, why wait for hell to administer torture? In the US, the constitution shuns cruel and unusual punishmen, so something like putting bamboo shoots under one's nails would be perfectly legal (considering it has been done in China).

There is a big difference between what happened on 9/11 and what happened on April 19, 1995. As a member of a family that was directly affected by the Murray Bombing, as well as an avid supporter of capital punishment, I believe that a life in prison without the possibility of parol would be the best sentance that Terry Nichols can receive. And I also believe that Timothy McVay should have received the same. Do we really want to put them to death? It's the easy way out. He'll still die in prison, but give him a life in an Oklahoma prison and make him wish he was dead.

Killing is wrong, no matter how you try to rationalize it in your head.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! Jail is a far worse penalty than death. First off, the death penalty serves only one purpose in an atheists point of view: redemption. The death penalty is based on the "knowledge" that there is a hell. Unfortunately, only the european religions ever believed in the possibility of a torturous afterlife (christian, greek, roman, etc.)

So putting the idea of religious redemption aside (as it should be in the US gov't) Jail is far worse (if you are not a homosexual masochist) because of all of the violent rapes (especially for a guy like nichols, he's bound to become someone's bitch first day).

Honestly, why wait for hell to administer torture? In the US, the constitution shuns cruel and unusual punishmen, so something like putting bamboo shoots under one's nails would be perfectly legal (considering it has been done in China).
your argument is religious and thus no one cares

you are saying because hell doesnt exist dont kill them

thats inane, if hell doesnt exist, KILL THEM. if we killed everyone that has life in prison without parole or everyone with multiple life sentences or people with parole dates past the time they would probably live to, we would save probably billions of dollars supporting these bastards

go to jail for life, get supported by tax payers for the rest of your life

There is a big difference between what happened on 9/11 and what happened on April 19, 1995. As a member of a family that was directly affected by the Murray Bombing, as well as an avid supporter of capital punishment, I believe that a life in prison without the possibility of parol would be the best sentance that Terry Nichols can receive. And I also believe that Timothy McVay should have received the same. Do we really want to put them to death? It's the easy way out. He'll still die in prison, but give him a life in an Oklahoma prison and make him wish he was dead.
sometimes life in prison is a quicker way to death
jeffery dahlmer was given life in prison in wisconsin, i dont believe he lived 2 years.

Oh well. Killing is wrong, but all heterotrophic organisms wind up doing it. Any state does it, for sure. Proteting the death penalty is silly if you think killing is wrong; work on the problems that involve more killing, like warfare and terrorism, instead of saving the lives of people who arguably can be considered MOST worthy of death.

You're stating it wrong. The death penalty punishes MURDER (that pesky thing that is against the law) by the LAWFUL execution of the murderer. The two acts are in no way comparable.

Except for them both being the termination of someone's life? I think that's a pretty major comparison, actually.

I like the title of the thread (and one fetus). I can only assume that this person believes that abortion is murder. Interesting that he feels the death penalty is NOT.

Amazing that so many feel abortion is wrong based on their religious beliefs, but are willing to toss their beliefs asise to kill someone convicted of a crime. Remember, you can hardly ever be sure that a person is 100% guilty, and we have condemmned innocent people to deah before.

So even if "Thou Shalt not kill," has an exceoption to it for criminals (which I doubt), I am pretty sure the commandment is against executing innocent people.

This piece of vile scum should've gotten the chair.

I like the title of the thread (and one fetus). I can only assume that this person believes that abortion is murder. Interesting that he feels the death penalty is NOT.

I like the way that it seems to suggest that the foetus is equally relevant as the 160 people who were murdered, as if it wouldn't represent the sheer magnitude of the slaughter if the foetus wasn't mentioned.

Haha... Wow... only in America...

That's like the Green River Killer, Who only lived five miles from my house, that killed about 50 hookers over the last 20 years and dumped their bodies in the muck around the river...

They gave him life in exchange for being told where some of the bodies were.

There was a bank across the street from the Alfred P. Murrah Federal building in downtown Oklahoma City. There were atlest four different video cameras that captured the Ryder truck pulling in front of the building. The film was never used by the prosecution in either the McVeigh or Nichols cases. It seems that the FBI has used the "states secrets" act to keep the film from ever being released... why, what does the film show? Who are they protecting?

There was a bank across the street from the Alfred P. Murrah Federal building in downtown Oklahoma City. There were atlest four different video cameras that captured the Ryder truck pulling in front of the building. The film was never used by the prosecution in either the McVeigh or Nichols cases. It seems that the FBI has used the "states secrets" act to keep the film from ever being released... why, what does the film show? Who are they protecting?


oh I never heard about that. do you have a link. it is a bit fishy.

There was a bank across the street from the Alfred P. Murrah Federal building in downtown Oklahoma City. There were atlest four different video cameras that captured the Ryder truck pulling in front of the building. The film was never used by the prosecution in either the McVeigh or Nichols cases. It seems that the FBI has used the "states secrets" act to keep the film from ever being released... why, what does the film show? Who are they protecting?
could always try FIA to release it unless it compromises the security of the nation it should work but if it does compromise the security of the nation that just raises conspiracy questions

Does he deserve it, yes, however he cooperated with authorities against his accomplice so I think that should grant him the leniency that he got.
(note: If I am wrong about him cooperating, which I very well may be I just seem to remember him testifying against the other guy. And if I am wrong, deep fry his ass :D .)

I believe the death penalty is immoral and I don't make exceptions.

no the death penalty is letting him off easy. I never agreed with the death penalty. life in prison is much more torturous and is an actual punishment rather than putting people out of their misery and not giving them a chance to suffer for what they have done.
I certainly agree; this is one of my main reasons for not supporting the death penalty!

I'm against death penalty, period. It wouldn't make much sense to go and say "oh, this guy's different", now would it? :)

your argument is religious and thus no one cares

you are saying because hell doesnt exist dont kill them

thats inane, if hell doesnt exist, KILL THEM. if we killed everyone that has life in prison without parole or everyone with multiple life sentences or people with parole dates past the time they would probably live to, we would save probably billions of dollars supporting these bastards

go to jail for life, get supported by tax payers for the rest of your life

Hold on, did you even bother to read the rest of my reply. My argument is secular, almost antireligious!! I managed to justify torture, that's gotta count for something!

The death penalty has been one that has always been an issue to me that I can't defend or go against. I sometimes believe that prison is to good but I have never been in one to really know. I do feel that they should not be supported (free room and board if you must put into words) there is something they should have to do to pay their way. Couldn't there be something prisoners could do? I would say like some to put them in the military but what would be stopping them from turning on their own in a time of need. Its a topic that I believe will always have pros and cons. I would also suggest making him watch video tapes of the people he killed and their families over and over but that would be if he had any morales which at this point I don't think he does or he wouldn't have done what he did. See I am in deep debate with myself on this one.

Agreed, though I think the death penalty should be round just to get rid of the most dangerous ones. The ones who continue to harm society even while in prison. Then again that could be taken care of with better prisons.

Care to clarify that?

How about, to remove psychotic killers from our midst? Killing them is in fact more humane than putting them in prison for life, and a lot cheaper, and you won't get repeat offenders.

Actually, this is false, it is less costly to sentence someone to life without parole than to sentence them to death.

no, not a fan of the death penalty in any case, in fact- life in prison, no chance of parole is the way to go
and if your complaint is that prison is more expensive, well THAT'S the problem to be fixing
why should we spend so much money on these prisoners?
We should make them earn their stay
sure, they may decide to just kill themselves when they realize they have no chance of getting out, but whatever, let them do it if they want...

I am against the death penalty.
I don't believe it is hypocritical, and I don't have any particular moral objections. So long as the person is guilty of the crime for which they are convicted and sentenced.
But therein lies the problem; more than 10 percent of the people on death row are eventually discovered to be innocent of the crimes for which they were sentenced to death, sometimes after that sentence has been carried out. This, to me, is unacceptable.

I think that the whole 'prison is worse than death' justification is a horrible reason to be against the death penalty. It's fucking sadistic, and it's one of the reasons the prison system is as bad as it is. And it's bullshit. There is nothing worse than death. For so long as you are not dead, you are alive. I'm not saying that there is hope in every situation, but there is life, and I think that is worth enduring anything for.

Morality is a tricky thing. I prefer compassionate pragmaticism. I don't believe in RIGHT and WRONG. Those concepts can be equated with good and evil, and I don't think either complete benevolence nor all consuming malevolence are in the human repetoire. I don't think they exist on any level.

How about, to remove psychotic killers from our midst? Killing them is in fact more humane than putting them in prison for life, and a lot cheaper, and you won't get repeat offenders.

Repeat offenders? Maybe i am a slight bit misinformed about US prisons, but how many lifers get to be repeat offenders? It is a tad hard to run around killing people when you are in a max security facility until you drop dead, isnt it?

...I hope he attempts to appeal, which can result in another attempt to give him the death penalty. But that's wishful thinking...

Not only is it "wishful thinking," I'm almost certian it's impossible. Double jeopardy and such. Once the Death Penalty is off the table it can never go back on, well not on the same charges at least. That's why appeals only come out of the defense. The Prosecution gets one chance to make the case and if they mess up, that's it, it's over.

As for the whole death penalty "right vs. wrong" argument: Eh. It seems like the death penalty just gets used too liberally. I don't see the sense in executing a man for commiting a single murder. Maybe if there were aggravating circumstances, like if the victim was a child or a police office...Maybe... Or maybe if torture is invovled in some way. But for the vast majority of cases I don't see the sense. Now in the McVeigh case I supported the death penalty cause I believe he "pulled the trigger" so to speak, and thus killed those 160 people, and one fetus (It's the fetus that really irks you, isn't it?). But in this case, I think he was instrumental in the killings, but not the guy who set the bomb off, not like McVeigh. So in short, the Death Penalty should really be only reserved for the worst of the worst, and then only in cases where we can say with absolute certianty that this person is the killer.

There is a big difference between what happened on 9/11 and what happened on April 19, 1995. As a member of a family that was directly affected by the Murray Bombing, as well as an avid supporter of capital punishment, I believe that a life in prison without the possibility of parol would be the best sentance that Terry Nichols can receive. And I also believe that Timothy McVay should have received the same. Do we really want to put them to death? It's the easy way out. He'll still die in prison, but give him a life in an Oklahoma prison and make him wish he was dead.

How, PRECISELY, is mass murder in Oklahoma City any different from mass murder in New York City?

Just curious.

Actually, this is false, it is less costly to sentence someone to life without parole than to sentence them to death.

Out of curiosity, do you have a source for this? Because, although it may be true, it really just doesn't make sense to me. The only way I can see this being true would be because of the cost of years and years of useless appeals.

your argument is religious and thus no one cares

you are saying because hell doesnt exist dont kill them

thats inane, if hell doesnt exist, KILL THEM. if we killed everyone that has life in prison without parole or everyone with multiple life sentences or people with parole dates past the time they would probably live to, we would save probably billions of dollars supporting these bastards

go to jail for life, get supported by tax payers for the rest of your life

1) You misunderstood the post entirely. He says religious reasons SHOULD NOT have any part in US Law.

2) YOU don't care. That does not mean that NO ONE CARES.

3) Actually, it costs more to try to execute people than jail them for life, what with all the court costs for appeals.

4) I myself would rather they were put out of everyone's misery, like a mad dog. I believe it is actually more humane than caging someone for the rest of their lives. I believe the number of repeat offenders shows that prisoners are NOT rehabilitated -- if anything, they learn to be MORE antisocial in prison than they were before they went in.

5) However, don't be fooled. Prison SUCKS. You are not going to be having scads of fun while there. You cannot leave. You obey someone else's timetable, always. You cannot pursue your interests. You may be raped, beaten or murdered by your peers... or by your jailors. (Don't start screaming at me -- there are plenty of cases in the news to support this -- some people who become corrections officers are in fact as corrupt as or become corrupted by their charges.)

Its rather silly to say that criminals would prefer death over life in prison, if it was so miserable, they could find a way to easily kill themselves - whether its strangling themselves (With say an electric wire), jabbing themselves with a knife, or some other method...

I like the way that it seems to suggest that the foetus is equally relevant as the 160 people who were murdered, as if it wouldn't represent the sheer magnitude of the slaughter if the foetus wasn't mentioned.
I laughed when I first read the title. I'm a bad person.