NationStates Jolt Archive

I Don't know what to say...

Executed Death row inmates and their final statements (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI6.html)

I stumbled upon this. I can't feel anything but paralytic horror/shame. Some of these kids were only 17 when they committed their crime. I can't believe this is real. These are bad people, but just read some of the things they have to say.


Final statement:
The act I committed to put me here was not just heinous, it was senseless. But the person that committed that act is no longer here - I am.

I'm not going to struggle physically against any restraints. I'm not going to shout, use profanity or make idle threats. Understand though that I'm not only upset, but I'm saddened by what is happening here tonight. I'm not only saddened, but disappointed that a system that is supposed to protect and uphold what is just and right can be so much like me when I made the same shameful mistake.

If someone tried to dispose of everyone here for participating in this killing, I'd scream a resounding, "No." I'd tell them to give them all the gift that they would not give me...and that's to give them all a second chance.

I'm sorry that I am here. I'm sorry that you're all here. I'm sorry that John Luttig died. And I'm sorry that it was something in me that caused all of this to happen to begin with.

Tonight we tell the world that there are no second chances in the eyes of justice...Tonight, we tell our children that in some instances, in some cases, killing is right.

This conflict hurts us all, there are no SIDES. The people who support this proceeding think this is justice. The people that think that I should live think that is justice. As difficult as it ma seem, this is a clash of ideals, with both parties committed to what they feel is right. But who's wrong if in the end we're all victims?

In my heart, I have to believe that there is a peaceful compromise to our ideals. I don't mind if there are none for me, as long as there are for those who are yet to come. There are a lot of men like me on death row - good men - who fell to the same misguided emotions, but may not have recovered as I have.

Give those men a chance to do what's right. Give them a chance to undo their wrongs. A lot of them want to fix the mess they stated, but don't know ho. The problem is not in that people aren't willing to help them find out, but in the system telling them it won't matter anyway. No one wins tonight. No one gets closure. No one walks away victorious.

He was 17 years old when he killed an old man and stole his mercedes.
Now he's dead.

The U.S. is one of the few remaining democracies in the west, or in the first world who does this. Isn't anyone else affected by sh*t like this?

*munches on a taco*

Not really.

*hands out tacos*

I'm too callous, but I understand what you mean.

He killed a guy. He could've always pleaded guity and got a plea bargain. Anyone who is stupid enough to not do that and commited murder deserves no sympathy.

Well, he did learn his lesson.

*eats some tortilla*

He believes he's a martyr for a cause that he feels strongly for, nothing more, nothing less.

*munches on a taco*

Not really.

*hands out tacos*

Shame on you LG. Come on - the death penalty is wrong and you know it. It's jsut sinking to the same level as the criminal even before their repentance (assuming they are repentant, which in this case he is), somethign we've been told since primary school not to do.

*shamefacedly accepts taco*

It is an eerie reminder of why we who live in societies where this awful practice is banned are so fortunate.

Shame on you LG. Come on - the death penalty is wrong and you know it. It's jsut sinking to the same level as the criminal even before their repentance (assuming they are repentant, which in this case he is), somethign we've been told since primary school not to do.

*shamefacedly accepts taco*

The last thing I'd do is speak for anybody else. But to me, the death penalty isn't an issue of right or wrong. It's killing. Killing is wrong. It's a matter of degree. If a jury of his peers decides that this person is unredeemable, and therefore the choices are life without parole or the death penalty, then I lean toward death. Why? Because in my mind, they're the same thing. Life without parole, in my mind, is a long cruel pointless death.

If there is a mistake here, it is a mistake by the jury in not considering this...boy to be someone who could be redeemed. On the other hand, If he showed any remorse over his actions at all, he probably would have been given the chance.

But if you're asking me if I think he's better off wasting away in prison until he expires, I'm sorry, but he's better off dead.

P.S.: These tacos are great with guacamole.

*searches for sympathy*

Nope, empty.

The U.S. is one of the few remaining democracies in the west, or in the first world who does this. Isn't anyone else affected by sh*t like this?

Nope! I'm not affected at all. Those that commit murder deserve what they get. Even God allows for those that commit murder to be killed themselves.

It is an eerie reminder of why we who live in societies where this awful practice is banned are so fortunate.

I know, I couldn't help being filled with dread over the contemplation of the institution existing! Imagine looking another human being in the eye knowing they were going to die and there's nothing anyone can do (chills) Imagine talking to them, interacting with another human mind, which because of some accepted system, will soon be ended. Especially cos I'm atheist, the absolutism of it scares me.

Even God allows for those that commit murder to be killed themselves.

A religion saying something is all the more reason to oppose it.

Nope! I'm not affected at all. Those that commit murder deserve what they get. Even God allows for those that commit murder to be killed themselves.
Wasn't it noted that in some extremely strict Mid East country (or someplace) where your left hand was chopped off for stealing, say a loaf of rye bread from an old woman, that crime severly dropped?

For me, the death penalty should be more ironic. It should be used to stop someone from killing again. It isn't saying "killing is okay". It's saying "If you kill, prepare to die. You did something wrong, but it wasn't wrong wnough to justify spending your life in a small cage where you'll be raped by a hairy man, you'll fear for your life, and guards won't have sympathy for you because you had it coming when you did what you did. You killed, so you'll die. You did wrong, so wrong will happen to you. You deserve it. You are a risk and you are uncurable. We won't risk you getting out and killing again. We're going to end this nightmare right here, right now."

It's needed because there are dangerous people out there and prisons can be escaped from. How do we know that this isn't just his way of trying to get away from it? Does he really mean it?

Wasn't it noted that in some extremely strict Mid East country (or someplace) where your left hand was chopped off for stealing, say a loaf of rye bread from an old woman, that crime severly dropped?

As a side-effect, so did masturbation. :p

I know, I couldn't help being filled with dread over the contemplation of the institution existing! Imagine looking another human being in the eye knowing they were going to die and there's nothing anyone can do (chills) Imagine talking to them, interacting with another human mind, which because of some accepted system, will soon be ended. Especially cos I'm atheist, the absolutism of it scares me.

I don't have to imagine. I work at a hospital, and deal with inevitable death on a regular basis. It's enough to break your heart if you let it. :(

If I ever wavered in my resolve to be against the death penalty, it has made me all the more its staunch adversary.

He was 17 years old when he killed an old man and stole his mercedes. Now he's dead.

And the old man is dead also. :(

And the old man is dead also. :(

And this fixed nothing.

Wasn't it noted that in some extremely strict Mid East country (or someplace) where your left hand was chopped off for stealing, say a loaf of rye bread from an old woman, that crime severly dropped?

I do not know that but hey, I'm a big believer of make the punishment fit the crime :D

As a side-effect, so did masturbation. :p
left hand? ;)

Fourteen-year-old Brandy Hill had traveled to Lawton, Oklahoma, to spend several weeks with her father during her summer vacation. On July 20, 1993, Charm and his sixteen-year-old cousin, Ronald Jessie, visited Michael Hill, the girl's father. Charm and Hill were described as drinking buddies. As Charm and Jessie drove away from the Hill residence that afternoon, they spied Brandy walking down the street. The two men lured her into their car. Jessie then wrapped a piece of cloth around Brandy Hill's neck. The men drove the victim to a field. There, both Charm and Jessie each twice raped the girl. Afterwards, Jessie tried to choke her to death with the piece of cloth. He could not kill her, however. Charm then tried, still without success. Finally, Jessie retrieved a sledgehammer from the car's trunk and hit the girl twice in the head. Charm then hit her several more times. The two men left Brandy Hill's body there in the field, where it was discovered several days later.

He's gonna be executed in June. I suggest you start your letter writing campaign and set out to Oklahoma for your candlelight vigil. If it were me I'd fry the sixteen year old, too. ;)

left hand? ;)

Don't you use your off hand? I'm right handed. :p

And this fixed nothing.

It put a murderer out of this nation's existence.

A religion saying something is all the more reason to oppose it.

I know of a religion that says "Thou shalt not kill." So, I guess we have reason to oppose that? :eek:

I know of a religion that says "Thou shalt not kill." So, I guess we have reason to oppose that? :eek:

Apparently people like you do.

I do not know that but hey, I'm a big believer of make the punishment fit the crime :D
That's my only advocation for totalitarian-esque punishments, but then I remember that I'd just screw myself if I ever got caught. I wish I could be above the law. :(

*tries to be Republican* :p

On second thought, we could instate capital punishment for something like parking tickets! That'll get rid of those idiots who can't park right (like me, sometimes) and curb overpopulation!

It put a murderer out of this nation's existence.

Again, fixed nothing. Didn't bring the victim back, didn't reduce the tragedy in any sense. Didn't even curb your crime rate.

I know of a religion that says "Thou shalt not kill." So, I guess we have reason to oppose that? :eek:

You do know that is talking about people killing innocent people right and not being executed for murder.

Don't you use your off hand? I'm right handed. :p
Only if my right is occupied by being on the mouse :D

That's my only advocation for totalitarian-esque punishments, but then I remember that I'd just screw myself if I ever got caught. I wish I could be above the law. :(

*tries to be Republican* :p

On second thought, we could instate capital punishment for something like parking tickets! That'll get rid of those idiots who can't park right (like me, sometimes) and curb overpopulation!

LOL! Or just take his car and license for the rest of their lives :D

And this fixed nothing.

I'm still working on that Fass. I'm still re-evaluating my pro-death penalty stance.

Only if my right is occupied by being on the mouse :D

Amazing what conversations can break off from the OP...

Again, fixed nothing. Didn't bring the victim back, didn't reduce the tragedy in any sense. Didn't even curb your crime rate.

The only way to curb the crime rate is to put these morons on Death Row to death within a couple of years of being convicted. We don't and they sit on death row for a couple of decades before they are put to death, if at all.

You do know that is talking about people killing innocent people right and not being executed for murder.

Yes.

Amazing what conversations can break off from the OP...

Isn't it though?

Yes.

Just checking :)

The only way to curb the crime rate is to put these morons on Death Row to death within a couple of years of being convicted. We don't and they sit on death row for a couple of decades before they are put to death, if at all.

Fixing an already flawed system that inevitably takes the lives of innocents by reducing further the prospect of preventing that, thereby making it even more flawed. Stellar strategy.

LOL! Or just take his car and license for the rest of their lives :D
That works too.

Amazing what conversations can break off from the OP...What? You only use your left? :p

Here's a great last statement:
"An innocent man is going to be murdered tonight. When my innocence is proven, I hope America will realize the injustice of the death penalty as all other civilized countries have."

That was in 1992. For more than a decade after a priest who had known Roger since he was a child dedicated himslef to proving Roger's innocence. His quest finally ended in Jan. of this year when his long sought DNA test proved that Roger was indeed guilty of raping, sodomizing and murdering his wife's sister.

I don't like the death penalty, but I question how the murder of a man who had done no wrong simply to relieve him of his car is set aside as if his innocent life had no intrinsic worth, but the life of a selfish, murderous person is somehow worth more because he is young.

He may be sorry now that he was caught. I bet the man's family is sorry they are without a husband, father, brother, grandfather, too.

What? You only use your left? :p

*Insert world's largest smilie*

Say, does anybody know if its true or not that the death penaly is applied disproportionately to the poor?

Any tacos left?

The only way to curb the crime rate is to put these morons on Death Row to death within a couple of years of being convicted. We don't and they sit on death row for a couple of decades before they are put to death, if at all.

Corn, I've always been for the death penalty, but what about some of the cases reciently where a person sitting on death row for years was found innocent after DNA testing that was not available years ago. If they had been put to death "within a couple of years" they would be in a cemetary now instead of walking around free. That's why I'm having a problem with the death penalty now. :sad:

He may be sorry now that he was caught. I bet the man's family is sorry they are without a husband, father, brother, grandfather, too.
The real bugger is when the someone gives an apology to a victims family.
"I'm sorry for your loss."
"Not as much as we are."
That is such a kicker.

Corn, I've always been for the death penalty, but what about some of the cases reciently where a person sitting on death row for years was found innocent after DNA testing that was not available years ago. If they had been put to death "within a couple of years" they would be in a cemetary now instead of walking around free. That's why I'm having a problem with the death penalty now. :sad:

Now though, we can prove a man's innocence or guilt using DNA evidence.

I Don't know what to say...

Executed Death row inmates and their final statements (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI6.html)

I stumbled upon this. I can't feel anything but paralytic horror/shame. Some of these kids were only 17 when they committed their crime. I can't believe this is real. These are bad people, but just read some of the things they have to say.



He was 17 years old when he killed an old man and stole his mercedes.
Now he's dead.

The U.S. is one of the few remaining democracies in the west, or in the first world who does this. Isn't anyone else affected by sh*t like this?
:rolleyes: No

I oppose the death penalty on practical, logistical and some philosophical reasons.


However, I will not shed a tear because this person is no longer around to commit more crime. Its a shame a lives have been lost, but he did take one.

You people cry for him because he claimed to be sorry? Piss poor apology by the way. He spends more time chastising the system rather than trying to make ammends for his own crimes. How the hell can he assume some moral high ground? He is not a different person. He happens to be older and has a larger rectum while looking at a needle.

It doesn't matter if a convict finds God, Allah, Yahweh, Buddha or L Ron Hubbard while in prison. He knowingly broke the law and was found guilty by a jury of peers( or he plead out). There is a criminal justice system that puts the burden pf proof on the prosecutors and an appeal system to review verdicts and sentencing.

Now though, we can prove a man's innocence or guilt using DNA evidence.

Only if there is any DNA. There are still cases where there is no DNA.

Only if there is any DNA. There are still cases where there is no DNA.

There are otherways to make sure you have the right murderer.

I don't have any sympathy for him. Even if he was genuinely a changed man, it doesn't change what he did. He still murdered somebody and for that he deserved to die.

It is an eerie reminder of why we who live in societies where this awful practice is banned are so fortunate.

Indeed. And it's an eerie reminder that not all of us are capable of simple human empathy. To support the death penalty is to display a lack of one of the most fundamental qualities which, in my eyes, make us human.

But then, I'm not really surprised. I have little faith in the humaneness, altruism or intelligence of most of my fellow human beings.

There are otherways to make sure you have the right murderer.

Not with absolute certainty. Or you wouldn't have people being found innocent while on death row. And you wouldn't have innocent people being put to death.

And you wouldn't have innocent people being put to death.
Can you show me an instance where that's happened? I think you'll be surprised when you try to find one.

Indeed. And it's an eerie reminder that not all of us are capable of simple human empathy. To support the death penalty is to display a lack of one of the most fundamental qualities which, in my eyes, make us human..
Bullshit. Just because I have no empathy for Tookie Williams does not mean I don't have empathy. I have enormous empathy for many people, I just don't give it to people who don't deserve it.

Can you show me an instance where that's happened? I think you'll be surprised when you try to find one.
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/b/bob-dylan/21332.html

Too lazy to find links to a "real" site, but there's the basics.

And though they could not produce the gun,
The d.a. said he was the one who did the deed
And the all-white jury agreed.

Rubin carter was falsely tried.
The crime was murder one, guess who testified?
Bello and bradley and they both baldly lied
And the newspapers, they all went along for the ride.
How can the life of such a man
Be in the palm of some fool’s hand?
To see him obviously framed
Couldn’t help but make me feel ashamed to live in a land
Where justice is a game.

Now all the criminals in their coats and their ties
Are free to drink martinis and watch the sun rise
While rubin sits like buddha in a ten-foot cell
An innocent man in a living hell.
That’s the story of the hurricane,

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/b/bob-dylan/21332.html

Too lazy to find links to a "real" site, but there's the basics.
Carter wasn't executed, he was exonerated. Proof to me that the system we have of appeals is working. What I asked for was a case where an innocent man was actually executed.

Carter wasn't executed, he was exonerated. Proof to me that the system we have of appeals is working. What I asked for was a case where an innocent man was actually executed.
Well, if 123 people (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=412&scid=6) have been falsely put on death row sice 1973, the chances of someone who's innocent actually being excecuted is quite high.

The United States no longer executes people who were sentenced as minors.

So ... one point is moot.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4518051

5-4 ruling. SCOTUS said such executions violate the 8th Amendment.

He was 17 years old when he killed an old man and stole his mercedes.
Now he's dead.

The U.S. is one of the few remaining democracies in the west, or in the first world who does this. Isn't anyone else affected by sh*t like this?

Ok, so what you are saying is I am supposed to feel bad for a murderer.
A murderer who killed for no other reason then envy, greed, sociopathic indifference--no thank you.

I am so sick of people talking about uncivilized the death sentence is,
Fine, start a half-way house and you let those feckers out when their time is up to live with you and your wife and your kids.

You want it to be everyone elses problem so you should get on the front line,
Do you go to prisons and council inmates?
Have bothered talking to families of anyone who suffered a loss to some human piece of shit ?

Yeah I am affected by shit like this, they need to people people like him in the chair and people like you in his lap.

Yeah I am affected by shit like this, they need to people people like him in the chair and people like you in his lap.

It must suck to go through life so full of anger.

Well, if 123 people (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=412&scid=6) have been falsely put on death row sice 1973, the chances of someone who's innocent actually being excecuted is quite high.
That doesn't say that 123 innocent people were put on Death Row. It says that 123c people had their sentances or convictions overturned. Some were probably actually innocent This to me is proof that if we are going to have a dealth penalty we need to keep the ruyles like automatic appeals in place because they work. Innocent people get set free. If these people had not been sentenced to death many of them would probably have spent the rest of their lives in prison. But usually this is because of evidence that gets excluded like they found the girl's bloody panties in the guy's gym bag but they never had a warrent. In anycase, its actually not a safe bet. I think you'll find that if you look there is not one single case where a person who was actually executed was later found to be innocent. This is in spite of the fact that organizations such as the one who's webpage you sent me to are constantly trying to do so.

I think you'll find that if you look there is not one single case where a person who was actually executed was later found to be innocent. This is in spite of the fact that organizations such as the one who's webpage you sent me to are constantly trying to do so.

http://www.quixote.org/ej/grip/reasonabledoubt/Girvies%20Davis.html

http://www.justicedenied.org/executed.htm

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engAMR510691998

I Don't know what to say...

Executed Death row inmates and their final statements (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI6.html)

I stumbled upon this. I can't feel anything but paralytic horror/shame. Some of these kids were only 17 when they committed their crime. I can't believe this is real. These are bad people, but just read some of the things they have to say.



He was 17 years old when he killed an old man and stole his mercedes.
Now he's dead.

The U.S. is one of the few remaining democracies in the west, or in the first world who does this. Isn't anyone else affected by sh*t like this?


Nope, not at all. He killed someone, he should pay the price. It's funny to me, most people on death row have, "made their peace with God, learned their lesson" etc...I wonder how many would kill again if had the chance.

I find it funny how you try to make the criminal seem like the victim...he is not a victim, not at all

Give those men a chance to do what's right. Give them a chance to undo their wrongs. A lot of them want to fix the mess they stated, but don't know ho. The problem is not in that people aren't willing to help them find out, but in the system telling them it won't matter anyway. No one wins tonight. No one gets closure. No one walks away victorious.

Sad to say, but you can't undo your wrongs. You killed someone. No amount of apologies or community service will bring them back. The only way you could fix the mess you made would be to travel back in time and stop yourself from killing that person. In my opinion, no matter how many good deeds you do to atone, although it may lessen it a bit nothing will ever erase the fact you killed a person in cold blood. A lot, not all, but a lot, of the criminals who give these apologies are just looking for an excuse to get out and wreak more mayhem.

Sad to say, but you can't undo your wrongs. You killed someone. No amount of apologies or community service will bring them back.Neither does killing the perpetrator.

http://www.quixote.org/ej/grip/reasonabledoubt/Girvies%20Davis.html

http://www.justicedenied.org/executed.htm

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engAMR510691998
well, that's a lot of stuff and I'll read it and respond later, but I notice the Amnesty page has Roger Coleman's case which is the one I sited on page two of this thread. He was a poster child of how innocent people are put to death and DNA tests just a couple months ago, 14 yeasr after he was executed, proved he was guilty the whole time.

The only way to curb the crime rate is to put these morons on Death Row to death within a couple of years of being convicted. We don't and they sit on death row for a couple of decades before they are put to death, if at all.

But it doesn't curb the crime rate at all.

Well, if 123 people (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=412&scid=6) have been falsely put on death row sice 1973, the chances of someone who's innocent actually being excecuted is quite high.

Indeed (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=111#executed). (If it doesn't take you there directly, click on "Executed but possibly Innocent").

To advocate executing someone is to not care about possibly putting an innocent person to death.

There's no justification for the death penalty. None. The civilised world did away with it a long time ago, and we've never had cause to regret it. Maybe those of you who still support the death penalty are just so narrow-minded and ignorant that you can't see beyond your own borders.

To actually advocate someone's death is simply to give in to sick impulses and instincts, which have no place in a civilised society. I'm just glad I live in a part of the world where we're a little more evolved than that.

Now though, we can prove a man's innocence or guilt using DNA evidence.

Not if there is no DNA evidence.

There are otherways to make sure you have the right murderer.

Name them please.

But it doesn't curb the crime rate at all.
When I become Prez and make it a capital punishment for everything down to petty theft, just watch the crime rate drop :D

well, that's a lot of stuff and I'll read it and respond later, but I notice the Amnesty page has Roger Coleman's case which is the one I sited on page two of this thread. He was a poster child of how innocent people are put to death and DNA tests just a couple months ago, 14 yeasr after he was executed, proved he was guilty the whole time.

Roger Coleman's case was more than DNA tests - even if guilty, there were procedural errors up the whazoo. But do read. Especially the part that says: "There is no judicial mechanism for review of guilt or pronouncement of innocence after an execution. The courts are done with it. Therefore, it should go without saying that no court has announced that an executed person was innocent, since American courts by definition do not make such findings."

What I asked for was a case where an innocent man was actually executed.

Psy, you have a good point but to prove that an innocent man was executed would be a daunting task. Not because it may not have happened, but how are you going to prove it?

I can think of only two ways; first would be DNA and the second would be a confession from someone after the date of the execution. In the case of DNA, very few, if any, people are going to take the time and money to run the tests for anyone who has already been tried, convicted, and executed. In the case of a confession you would stand a better chance of proving the executed person was innocent, but what criminal in their right mind is going to confess if someone else has been convicted?

As to the death penalty debate, I'd have to say I'm against it. Not because I believe it's morally wrong, but because it costs more to put someone to death in the US, than to give them life in prison (lawyer fees, court costs, etc all due to automatic appeals). That's my tax dollars, and I hate seeing them wasted like that. Sentence them to life in prison, where they can do something productive (hopefully, something the state can market to defer the cost of supporting these lowlifes).

Ok, so what you are saying is I am supposed to feel bad for a murderer.
A murderer who killed for no other reason then envy, greed, sociopathic indifference--no thank you.

I am so sick of people talking about uncivilized the death sentence is,
Fine, start a half-way house and you let those feckers out when their time is up to live with you and your wife and your kids.

You want it to be everyone elses problem so you should get on the front line,
Do you go to prisons and council inmates?
Have bothered talking to families of anyone who suffered a loss to some human piece of shit ?

Yeah I am affected by shit like this, they need to people people like him in the chair and people like you in his lap.

Skib, would it be so bad to keep them locked up for the rest of their lives without the possibility of parole or pardon? I don't think living in a cell 23 hours a day for the rest of my life would be that pleasant. I might prefer death, as Tim McVeigh did to life. I don't know.

I don't like your source.

Maybe those of you who still support the death penalty are just so narrow-minded and ignorant that you can't see beyond your own borders.

You should not attack the person but their ideas. To do otherwise only weakens your own arguement. :(

Locking someone up for the rest of their life is a bad thing to do as well, but we do it. Unfortunately for this man, he gave up his rights to the state by refusing to follow those laws set down by us to provide a peaceful society.

Do I support the death penalty? No, not really. Am I going to cry out "This is wrong, we shouldn't kill!"? No, I am not.

Locking someone up for the rest of their life is a bad thing to do as well, but we do it. Unfortunately for this man, he gave up his rights to the state by refusing to follow those laws set down by us to provide a peaceful society.

Do I support the death penalty? No, not really. Am I going to cry out "This is wrong, we shouldn't kill!"? No, I am not.

I would support life in prison over the death penalty if life in prison included physical and mental torture every day until the person's death. Torture for life would deter criminals more than the death penalty would I guess.

I would support life in prison over the death penalty if life in prison included physical and mental torture every day until the person's death. Torture for life would deter criminals more than the death penalty would I guess.

I seriously doubt that it would. I wouldn't stand for torture either way.

I'd rather die than be locked up in prison for life.

Shame on you LG. Come on - the death penalty is wrong and you know it. It's jsut sinking to the same level as the criminal even before their repentance (assuming they are repentant, which in this case he is), somethign we've been told since primary school not to do.

*shamefacedly accepts taco*


How can you know wether anyone is truly repentant or not?

If I killed a loved one of yours, particularly in some brutal fashion, and at my execution, told you how very sorry I was, and how much Ive learned about the error of my ways, you wouldnt know the difference, I promise.

When does society decide that a person is no longer fit to live?
Pedophila?
Rape?
Serial killing?

Im fairly liberal minded, but when you commit any of the above...you forfeit your right to live.

Im fairly liberal minded...
Obviously you're not.

Since when does the State decide who has the right to live and who doesn't?
Life is not something that we have by virtue of others and especially not the government.

To the OP: yes, I'm affected by shit like that.

I feel very strongly about capital punishment, yet (or because of that) I usually avoid these threads like the plague. I did read through this one and am predictably angered/saddened/frustrated, so I'm really only posting to say that your posts mirror my feelings exactly.

He was 17 years old when he killed an old man and stole his mercedes. Now he's dead.
Perhaps he would have been a bit less dead had he not killed another human being, whether "old" or not is irrelevant.

Obviously you're not.

Since when does the State decide who has the right to live and who doesn't?
Life is not something that we have by virtue of others and especially not the government.

Who says?

To the OP: yes, I'm affected by shit like that.

I feel very strongly about capital punishment, yet (or because of that) I usually avoid these threads like the plague. I did read through this one and am predictably angered/saddened/frustrated, so I'm really only posting to say that your posts mirror my feelings exactly.
I have a serious question for you and others who have such great sympathy for the convicts: why can you not feel sympathy for their victims? How is it possible to feel so deeply for the perpetrators, yet feel virtually nothing for those against whom such awful crimes were comitted? That truly does make absolutely no sense to me! :(

Who says?
Well, I don't think I live because a government said so, right? Nor am I alive bcause society said so. Neither helped me in the act of getting to be, or being alive.

Being alive sorta comes before all the moral considerations, so it's outside the scope of even the most moralistic government.

Life is not even a human right, it's a precursor to it.

Roger Coleman's case was more than DNA tests - even if guilty, there were procedural errors up the whazoo. But do read. Especially the part that says: "There is no judicial mechanism for review of guilt or pronouncement of innocence after an execution. The courts are done with it. Therefore, it should go without saying that no court has announced that an executed person was innocent, since American courts by definition do not make such findings."
I will but that's beside the point. From what I have read no independent group was ever able to prove a person's innocence. They've never been able to show a DNA result proved a person was innocent even if the court won't look at it, for example. They have never been able to provide a viable alternate suspect, for example. In the case you mentioned they did a DNA test and it proved that all his claims of innocence were bullshit. He did it. If they had proved otherwise maybe a court wouldn't have taken it up because there's no legal reason to do so, but they still could publish the results and have them verified and all that. While I have not gone and looked myself, I have tread in credible sources, cnn, LATimes, places like that, that no one has been able to produce credible proof that an innocent person was executed and I ave asked this question on boards and chats an no one has ever been able to show me an actual case that proves an innocent man was put to death and usually the source they site has a perfectly good rebuttal to it once you look. Tookei Williams is a perfect example of that. People who were trying to get his sentence commuted straight up lied. They said things like, "It was an all white jury" and people just swallowed it. It wasn't There were seven whites on the jury and a black man and asians and Hispanics. They said he was convicted of the murders based, in part, on the testimony of a jail house informant. A jail house informant did testify against Tookie, but not about the murders. He testified about a plot Tookie had to escape and blow up a Sherrif's bus. The Sherrif's had written documents in Tookie's handwriting to prove the plot existed.


What a lot of people also don't know is that, for example, CA has executed less than 20 people since capital punishment was instituted over 30 years ago. Way more people have died while on death row from natural causes than from being executed. They get a LOT of appeals and last minute chances. The fact that you can show some innocent people and a whole lot of guilty people get off because they were either innocent or there was a technicality to me is proof that the system does work.

I have a serious question for you and others who have such great sympathy for the convicts: why can you not feel sympathy for their victims?
Who says that we don't?

I have a serious question for you and others who have such great sympathy for the convicts: why can you not feel sympathy for their victims? How is it possible to feel so deeply for the perpetrators, yet feel virtually nothing for those against whom such awful crimes were comitted? That truly does make absolutely no sense to me! :(
I don't have great sympathy for murderers. I just think institutionalized murder servers no other purpose than lowly revenge. Is it going to bring back the victim?

Who says that we don't?
Well, you never seem to mention it. All I ever hear out of the anti-death penalty folks is "OMFG teh death penalty is teh suxorz. Those poor, poor people being executed by the state!" What about their victims? Don't they deserve a bit of your precious sympathy as well?

I don't have great sympathy for murderers. I just think institutionalized murder servers no other purpose than lowly revenge. Is it going to bring back the victim?
No, but it sure will prevent the possibility of any future ones!

Well, I don't think I live because a government said so, right? Nor am I alive bcause society said so. Neither helped me in the act of getting to be, or being alive.

Being alive sorta comes before all the moral considerations, so it's outside the scope of even the most moralistic government.

Life is not even a human right, it's a precursor to it.

You are correct that existence is a precursor to rights. However, the person facing the death penalty as forsaken his rights (or at least society took them from him), so his existence is meaningless anyway.

What reasoning do you have for not allowing society to use the death penalty to further the life of those who do exist within its bounds?

I Don't know what to say...

Executed Death row inmates and their final statements (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI6.html)

I stumbled upon this. I can't feel anything but paralytic horror/shame. Some of these kids were only 17 when they committed their crime. I can't believe this is real. These are bad people, but just read some of the things they have to say.



He was 17 years old when he killed an old man and stole his mercedes.
Now he's dead.

The U.S. is one of the few remaining democracies in the west, or in the first world who does this. Isn't anyone else affected by sh*t like this?

Yeah, I got tears running down my face.

How nice that this kid gets to have his last words memorialized. I wonder what the old man's last words were before he cut him down just for his car?

Oh that's right, we'll never know, because bleeding heart anti-death-penalty interest groups never bother finding out what the VICTIMS last thoughts on this world were.

I don't have great sympathy for murderers. I just think institutionalized murder servers no other purpose than lowly revenge. Is it going to bring back the victim?

No, it doesn't bring back the victim. And you know what? Neither does prison sentences. No punishment makes the crime un-happen. Maybe we shouldn't punish anyone, right?

Fact is, the old "it doesn't change what happened" and "it doesn't bring back the victim" argument is a pure strawman fallacy. No one on earth claims that capital punishment makes time go backward and brings the dead back to life.

Well, you never seem to mention it. All I ever hear out of the anti-death penalty folks is "OMFG teh death penalty is teh suxorz. Those poor, poor people being executed by the state!" What about their victims? Don't they deserve a bit of your precious sympathy as well?
Sure, but killing the perpetrator is not what I would call showing sympathy.

Fact is, the old "it doesn't change what happened" and "it doesn't bring back the victim" argument is a pure strawman fallacy. No one on earth claims that capital punishment makes time go backward and brings the dead back to life.
It doesn't work as a deterrent either and taking them out of society doesn't have to involve the death penalty.

Well, you never seem to mention it. All I ever hear out of the anti-death penalty folks is "OMFG teh death penalty is teh suxorz. Those poor, poor people being executed by the state!"
They are people being executed by the state. That people who usually consider themselves minarchists would support the state making that sort of decision in any situation does confuse me though.

What about their victims? Don't they deserve a bit of your precious sympathy as well?
Sure they do. But that's hardly the topic of the thread, and especially not the topic of the argument about the legitimacy of the principle of the death penalty.
And you'll notice that I don't argue on sympathy. Even when Tookie was killed, I was arguing that his continued work towards getting people away from violence was a lot more useful than his death, not because I thought he was such a great guy.

However, the person facing the death penalty as forsaken his rights (or at least society took them from him), so his existence is meaningless anyway.
The point is that it is not up to society to take that particular thing away.
I'm pretty sure I know what you're after here, but you must understand that there are some rights and activities that society does facilitate, that couldn't exist without the people around me. It is possible for society to take these rights away, and at least on principle, I wouldn't argue against it if it wasn't too outrageous a case.

Life is not one of those things though. I can live without society, albeit it not very well. At best you could argue that this person should get his right to live in society and with its protection revoked.
Or in other words: Prison.

What reasoning do you have for not allowing society to use the death penalty to further the life of those who do exist within its bounds?
It's not necessary. Whether someone is in a secure prison, or dead, the risk he/she poses to others is the same.

It doesn't work as a deterrent either

I tire of that argument. It's usually based on a lack of overt statistical correlation, but statistics is one of the three kinds of lies. And absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If I'm homeless, or imprisoned by drugs, the thought of life in prison doesn't exactly scare me. I'm already used to shitty housing and lack of freedom. Sure, there'll be uniformed guards (like that's a new thing) and there'll be bad people around me (like that's a new thing) but so what?

On the other hand, only a suicidal man doesn't have a survival instinct. All living things on the planet have the instinct to continue living.

There is no greater threat to a living thing than to take away his life. Apparently this is why murder seems to be the most heavily punished of crimes, too.

Obviously you're not.

Since when does the State decide who has the right to live and who doesn't?
Life is not something that we have by virtue of others and especially not the government.

If the state is a Democratic state, a majority of the people living in the state decided, not the state itself.

If the state is a Republic, the officials elected by a majority of the people dedide.

In either case it is a majority of the voters living in the state that decide what the laws are and thus decide who is subject to the death penalty.

I have a serious question for you and others who have such great sympathy for the convicts: why can you not feel sympathy for their victims? How is it possible to feel so deeply for the perpetrators, yet feel virtually nothing for those against whom such awful crimes were comitted? That truly does make absolutely no sense to me! :(
Whoa! Now I'm glad I did click back into this thread.

Whereever do you get the idea that I (or "we", in extension) don't feel sympathy for the victims, or even "feel virtually nothing" for them?

God, nothing could be further from the truth.

Like hinted at in my above post, I don't much like to get into debates about the death penalty because I've made the experience that this is one of those issues where the gulf is just too deep between the opposite views. Apart from a certain agreement that could maybe in some cases be achieved regarding purely "rational" facts like cost or the (non-existant) deterrence effect, this is an issue that for the overwhelming majority of people will boil down to "It's just wrong" or "It's just right". (Oh my God, are we having the "gut feeling" discussion again? I swear, Eutrusca, you always drag me into these things ;)).

I'm not sure I'll even be successful in trying to make you see what I think (just like I probably will never really understand your view/motivations).
Maybe I can best sum it up by skipping all the "rational" arguments and going straight to the point:

When I read about people who have committed truly heinous murders, there have been instances where I was so revolted by both the crime and the criminal that I would have been perfectly able to think "Yeah, this guy is the scum of the earth. They could just as well kill him. He'd deserve it, look what he did to his victims."

But when I start thinking/imagining this through, I always, always come to the point at the very end, where it is one man who is about to be killed for killing another person - and it always stops right there. I can't find the words to describe the sheer surrealism of "us", the society, willingly and methodically and bureaucratically going about killing another human being; simply because he is just that, a human being. Not a "monster", not a "freak". He may be a terrible, despiccable person, and yes, he may even not be repenting his crimes, but he is never just the sum of his crimes. A person is never just the sum of their crimes. Not even Jeffrey Dahmer, or John Wayne Gacy. And let's face it - there are a lot more guys who shot a convenience store clerk at 17 on death row than there are Jeffrey Dahmers or John Wayne Gacys.

In either case it is a majority of the voters living in the state that decide what the laws are and thus decide who is subject to the death penalty.
Which matters to the argument because?

Sure they do. But that's hardly the topic of the thread, and especially not the topic of the argument about the legitimacy of the principle of the death penalty.


The victims are just as much a part of the argument for or against the death penalty. Without the victim there would never be a death penalty imposed. You cannot, should not, and must not discount them or their families when talking about the "legitimacy of the principle of the death penalty.":mad:

The victims are just as much a part of the argument for or against the death penalty. Without the victim there would never be a death penalty imposed. You cannot, should not, and must not discount them or their families when talking about the "legitimacy of the principle of the death penalty.":mad:
Maybe not entirely, but in my opinion it shouldn't account for much. Families are generally seeking nothing more than revenge and law shouldn't be based on emotion.

The victims are just as much a part of the argument for or against the death penalty. Without the victim there would never be a death penalty imposed. You cannot, should not, and must not discount them or their families when talking about the "legitimacy of the principle of the death penalty.":mad:
Why? Because that would mean that I am making a rational decision, rather than one based on emotional calls for revenge?

Whoa! simply because he is just that, a human being. Not a "monster", not a "freak". He may be a terrible, despiccable person, and yes, he may even not be repenting his crimes, but he is never just the sum of his crimes. A person is never just the sum of their crimes. Not even Jeffrey Dahmer, or John Wayne Gacy. And let's face it - there are a lot more guys who shot a convenience store clerk at 17 on death row than there are Jeffrey Dahmers or John Wayne Gacys.

I cannot agree with you. I am not so sure people who commit such terrible crimes are human beings. I am not so sure they are not monsters, freaks, or just pure evil. These people might have the appearance of humans, but being human is so much more than looks.

Look what we do to an animal that kills or maims a human being even if the animal does it because they are starving. We kill that animal. Are murderers any better than animals? I think not, most animals are far better then them.

Why? Because that would mean that I am making a rational decision, rather than one based on emotional calls for revenge?

Look at where this thread is coming from. "Boo hoo, these poor convicts, they're so sad and it makes me hate that big meanie death penalty!"

Don't act like the only people who are not robots in this scenario is the angry pro capital punishment side. There's plenty of emotions on both sides of the issue, no escaping that fact.

Which matters to the argument because?

It is not the state but the people who live in the state that decide if the death penalty is appropriate. The people can change the law if they see fit to do so.

I cannot agree with you. I am not so sure people who commit such terrible crimes are human beings. I am not so sure they are not monsters, freaks, or just pure evil. These people might have the appearance of humans, but being human is so much more than looks.

Look what we do to an animal that kills or maims a human being even if the animal does it because they are starving. We kill that animal. Are murderers any better than animals? I think not, most animals are far better then them.
Why don't we just abolish all laws then? Reintroduce survival of the fittest. After all we're all animals. :rolleyes:

Maybe not entirely, but in my opinion it shouldn't account for much. Families are generally seeking nothing more than revenge and law shouldn't be based on emotion.

Is the family looking for revenge or justice? Justice should be devoid of emotion but it isn't. No person sitting in a jury box can divorce themselves from emotion no matter how hard they try and lawyers on both sides play to that emotion.

I'm truly sorry that you feel the victim should not account for much, but then I guess the person who murdered them felt the victim did not account for much. How sad
. :(

Is the family looking for revenge or justice? Justice should be devoid of emotion but it isn't. No person sitting in a jury box can divorce themselves from emotion no matter how hard they try and lawyers on both sides play to that emotion.

I'm truly sorry that you feel the victim should not account for much, but then I guess the person who murdered them felt the victim did not account for much. How sad
. :(
I'm saying their feelings shouldn't make up part of law. I'm not saying the victims don't account for much. And the appealing to emotions in a jury trial is exactly why I'm not in favour of jury trials either.

I'm saying their feelings shouldn't make up part of law. I'm not saying the victims don't account for much. And the appealing to emotions in a jury trial is exactly why I'm not in favour of jury trials either.
I don't know where you are but in the US the emotional family appeals are reserved for sentencing, not trial. At sentencing the judge has sole discretion.

I'm saying their feelings shouldn't make up part of law. I'm not saying the victims don't account for much. And the appealing to emotions in a jury trial is exactly why I'm not in favour of jury trials either.

Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying. I agree, their feelings should not make up part of the law.

I don't know where you are but in the US the emotional family appeals are reserved for sentencing, not trial. At sentencing the judge has sole discretion.

It depends on the state. In some states the sentence is mandated by law and neither judge or jury has any discretion. In some states the jury decides the sentence. In other states the sentence is decided by the judge.

The point is that it is not up to society to take that particular thing away.
I'm pretty sure I know what you're after here, but you must understand that there are some rights and activities that society does facilitate, that couldn't exist without the people around me. It is possible for society to take these rights away, and at least on principle, I wouldn't argue against it if it wasn't too outrageous a case.

I don't think that there is any right a person maintains that allows him to interrupt the peaceful and civil workings of society.

Life is not one of those things though. I can live without society, albeit it not very well.

There are many rights that one has without society. You have liberty without society, yet you can be imprisoned.

At best you could argue that this person should get his right to live in society and with its protection revoked.
Or in other words: Prison.

Do not forget that prison is facilitated by society, and prisoners are protected by people employed by society.

Do not confuse prison with a removal from society.

It's not necessary. Whether someone is in a secure prison, or dead, the risk he/she poses to others is the same.

Then you are arguing on grounds of practicality, not on grounds of moral injustice.

It depends on the state. In some states the sentence is mandated by law and neither judge or jury has any discretion. In some states the jury decides the sentence. In other states the sentence is decided by the judge.
I actually think its in some states teh jury recommends a sentence, but the judge may decide against following it. You're right that many crimes have mandatories, but I don't think any state has a mandatory death sentence. In anycase, the jury still doesn not hear a family's emotional testimony in any trial unless their testimony is pertinent to their guilt or innocence.

I tire of that argument.

I tire of capital punishment. The man killed another man, granted, and that was evil. The state then killed that man. Why don't you consider the state evil?

I tire of capital punishment. The man killed another man, granted, and that was evil. The state then killed that man. Why don't you consider the state evil?
Because the murderer gave up his right to live, when he killed obviously. :rolleyes:

Let's say we have a dog. This dog spent most of her life as a rescue dog. one day, she gets pregnant. Soon, she has puppies. Someone attacks her puppies. She attacks the attacker to save her puppies. People now want her dead. No exceptions. If she was spared, she would have continued to save lives after her puppies grew up. People still want her dead.

Now, we have a serial killer. this guy kills people just to spread suffering. At the trial, he points and laughs at the victims' families. People don't want him executed, even though even the best prisons can be broken out of(like Alcatraz). If he gets out, he will kill again. People don't want him dead, even though he wants them dead. He has a serious problem that is uncurable. He is dangerous and probably suffering. People still don't want him executed, even though he loves to spread pain and grief and he seriously needs to be relieved of his anguish.

In senerio one, we have a creature of greater value. She is a benefit to mankind. She saves many lives. She is killed for following her motherly instincts.

In senerio two, we have someone of lower value. He contributes nothing. People want him spared, even though killing him would be a more moral decision based on his pain. It is also less risky to kill him than to have him sit in prison plotting his escape.

In senerio one, saving her would have saved lives in the long run. In senerio two, saving him just puts more stress on the system. It burdens him greatly. It burdens the victims' families greatly.

Let's say we have a dog. This dog spent most of her life as a rescue dog. one day, she gets pregnant. Soon, she has puppies. Someone attacks her puppies. She attacks the attacker to save her puppies. People now want her dead. No exceptions. If she was spared, she would have continued to save lives after her puppies grew up. People still want her dead.

Now, we have a serial killer. this guy kills people just to spread suffering. At the trial, he points and laughs at the victims' families. People don't want him executed, even though even the best prisons can be broken out of(like Alcatraz). If he gets out, he will kill again. People don't want him dead, even though he wants them dead. He has a serious problem that is uncurable. He is dangerous and probably suffering. People still don't want him executed, even though he loves to spread pain and grief and he seriously needs to be relieved of his anguish.

In senerio one, we have a creature of greater value. She is a benefit to mankind. She saves many lives. She is killed for following her motherly instincts.

In senerio two, we have someone of lower value. He contributes nothing. People want him spared, even though killing him would be a more moral decision based on his pain. It is also less risky to kill him than to have him sit in prison plotting his escape.

In senerio one, saving her would have saved lives in the long run. In senerio two, saving him just puts more stress on the system. It burdens him greatly. It burdens the victims' families greatly.

What is this obsession with animals of yours?

People are animals.:p Plus, it puts holes in many questionable arguments and uncovers the grey between the black and white. However, if I were to really show my obcession, I would have brought up foxies and/or wolfies.

I've always been amused by the sheer hate people are capable of. They make the false asumption that they are any better for condoning murder than is the murderer they kill. That is almost never correct. People do terrible awful things. Those people need to either be reformed, so that they cannot harm again, or they need to be kept away from the world, so they can never harm again. That does not mean that killing them gives you the moral high ground.

I was taught as a child that two wrongs don't make a right. Is that no longer true amongst adults who ought to know better?

Tonight, we tell our children that in some instances, in some cases, killing is right. Which it is. Now whether his death falls under that category is an entirely different question.

Because the murderer gave up his right to live, when he killed obviously. :rolleyes:

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm (ie, you're agreeing with my point albeit in an ironic manner) or not, so I'll reply to it as if you seriously believe this.

To those who think a murderer forfeits his "right to life" when they commit murder, why? What body gives us (or the state) to decide if someone should live or die? Why is capital punishment not equal to murder? If the murderer forfeits their life, does the state do the same in murdering the murderer? If you believe capital punishment brings justice as defined by the state, is it right to use capital punishment on someone who killed to uphold their own version of justice? There is no such thing as a pain-free death, even if the pain is entirely psychological in nature. Is it just to torture someone?

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm (ie, you're agreeing with my point albeit in an ironic manner) or not, so I'll reply to it as if you seriously believe this.

To those who think a murderer forfeits his "right to life" when they commit murder, why? What body gives us (or the state) to decide if someone should live or die? Why is capital punishment not equal to murder? If the murderer forfeits their life, does the state do the same in murdering the murderer? If you believe capital punishment brings justice as defined by the state, is it right to use capital punishment on someone who killed to uphold their own version of justice? There is no such thing as a pain-free death, even if the pain is entirely psychological in nature. Is it just to torture someone?
Of course I wasn't serious. :p
I was just giving the standard pro death penalty answer.:D

Obviously you're not.

Since when does the State decide who has the right to live and who doesn't?
Life is not something that we have by virtue of others and especially not the government.
It depends on how one defines liberal. If one defines that as allowing all actions that do not hurt others physically or majorly mentally/emotionally, than he certainly might fit, but once you transgress those rules, you no longer get the benefit of them.

I do believe that, in some cases, killing is necessary. If someone were threatening my life, or the life of someone I loved, I would have no qualms with killing them. It doesn't make taking the life of someone "right," but I think the situation arises. The problem is if you believe a murder justifies killing the murderer or not.

I also believe that imminent death can make poets out of people. If you had one desperate attempt to save yourself, or at least guilt your killers on your way out, you would take it. In this paticular case, I lean towards being cynical and pointing out that it's really easy to find religion when you're facing death, and that it was perhaps a wee bit late for him to discover it. It would have been convenient, say, before he killed the man.

It's funny that "Thou shalt not kill" comes from the same book that tells us "an eye for an eye." I do believe that the death sentence is more merciful than letting someone rot away in a small room for the rest of their lives. I think our court system is ridiculous. I understand the point of appeals, and I agree that many amends have been made with new trials and/or evidence, but the fact that someone who was ridiculously guilty (several people saw them commit the murder, for instance) can live for several more decades is just pointless.

Didn't they pass a law awhile ago that said if there were three or more credible witnesses that there was no chance for appeal? Something like that.

I'm pro-death penalty in some cases of murder. Now I'll admit there are problems with innocent people being convicted, etc, and I certainly believe each case should be looked at individually, but if you've got 10 human corpses in your basement...come on. The mail man didn't put 'em there.


What body gives us (or the state) to decide if someone should live or die?

The same thing that gives us/the state the right to imprison someone.

Why is capital punishment not equal to murder?

Because murder is illegal. Executing a murderer is not murder. Is a giving someone a parking ticket the same as stealing their money? No.

There is no such thing as a pain-free death, even if the pain is entirely psychological in nature. Is it just to torture someone?

Is the psychological anguish of being locked up for 50+ years with no chance of parole any better? Come on.


The bible says "thou shalt not kill"

Perhaps that could be better translated as "thou shalt not murder." As the poster above me points out, the bible advocates the death penalty also.

We shouldn't go down to their level by executing them...

The way I look at it, we're all on the same level. We're all human beings, but some of us do despicable things that should absolutely not be tolerated by society.

The taking of another human life for no good reason is horrible, and the only just punishment for murder is the death penalty. I'm sure when sentencing comes around most murderers are real sorry (big surprise), but no sympathy should be shown when they make a decision to kill an innocent person.

Sen. Orrin Hatch said: Capital punishment is our society's recognition of the sanctity of human life.

Everyone should know the laws in their state regarding the death penalty. If you don't want to get executed, don't murder people! :headbang:

I tire of capital punishment. The man killed another man, granted, and that was evil. The state then killed that man. Why don't you consider the state evil?

Because the murderer's victim did not get a trial or commit a crime deserving of death. The murderer's victim doesn't get due process, appeals, or even a maudlin webpage chronicling their final statements.

If you honestly can't see the difference between execution of a convicted murderer, and murder itself, I question your ability to comprehend the concept of justice.

Not every sin is entirely bad all the time. There are exceptions. For instance, stealing a car is bad. Stealing food and water to keep your family alive isn't bad because the good outweighs it. Same thing with killing. If you rape and kill someone, you did wrong. If a maniac is trying to tear you apart with a knife, who's going to blame you for taking out your gun and blasting his brains out? If you have someone who has killed before and you fear he may kill again(we only have so many prisons. Some will have roommates and roommates do get killed in the big house.), then I don' blame you for executing him. He's too dangerous in your eyes and not putting him on death row may put many people at risk. It's evil, I know. But it is a necesary evil when you are part of a system whose one job is to protect the innocent, even if it means killing the guilty.

then there's this dilema: Is it better he die by being stabbed or strangled by his roommate or that he die in one of the most humane ways available. Of course, we could release him. However, that would hurt the innocent.

Again, fixed nothing. Didn't bring the victim back, didn't reduce the tragedy in any sense. Didn't even curb your crime rate.It did do one thing,it prevented him from ever murdering again.Isn't that what it was implemented for? A final punishment, one step to Gods' Judgement Chair.