NationStates Jolt Archive

Whenever I get close to changing my mind about the death penalty, something like this happens http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327916,00.html :mad:
How can any father stomp a three month old child to death? If anyone deserves the death penalty, this man does. How can anyone say otherwise?

How can anyone say otherwise?

Because I expect our government to be held to a standard higher than murderers?

Duh?

Death is the easy way out.

Death is the easy way out.

Are you suggesting it will be worse for him to spend his life in prison where he will remember what he has done? What if he has no remorse?

There are far worse things than death.

There are far worse things than death.

Like clichés.

Are you suggesting it will be worse for him to spend his life in prison where he will remember what he has done? What if he has no remorse?

Yes. He will be raped. Badly.

Real prisoners don't take kindly to people that hurt kids, if I'm not mistaken.

Like clichés.

Except clichés can't make you chew your own tongue off.

Lethal injection is too mild and unsymbolic. Bring back the guillotine. Then people will realize the price of murder. And apply it to all violent crimes, not just murder. We'll be short of thugs in no time.

Except clichés can't make you chew your own tongue off.

Me and my tongue-stump disagree.

Yes. He will be raped. Badly.

Real prisoners don't take kindly to people that hurt kids, if I'm not mistaken.

I'm not sure about the US, but in Canada I believe people can request protective custody. I'm not sure on exactly how it works, but it's probably a lot like solitary confinement or super-max security for the prisoner's own good.

I'm not sure about the US, but in Canada I believe people can request protective custody. I'm not sure on exactly how it works, but it's probably a lot like solitary confinement or super-max security for the prisoner's own good.

This is America. We don't have those pesky things for something as low as Murder. He'll be mixed witht he rest of the population, and be rather uncomfortible.

Whenever I get close to changing my mind about the death penalty, something like this happens http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327916,00.html :mad:
How can any father stomp a three month old child to death? If anyone deserves the death penalty, this man does. How can anyone say otherwise?

I am fine with him frying, hanging, injecting whatever it takes. He has ceased to deserve any function as a living being. Life in prison would be nothing but a waste of resources. There should not be one single moment of anyones life for any reason wasted on this scum ever. Delete his existance.

Are you suggesting it will be worse for him to spend his life in prison where he will remember what he has done? What if he has no remorse?From my first hand experience in prison I know it is worse than death itself. After a while you want death.

Yes. He will be raped. Badly.

Real prisoners don't take kindly to people that hurt kids, if I'm not mistaken.

Given life in prison, he would not be in with the general population and would most likely spend most of this time in isolation or at least a cell of his own.

Yes. He will be raped. Badly.

Real prisoners don't take kindly to people that hurt kids, if I'm not mistaken.

And that is just not right, anymore than the death penalty would be. Our prison system is absolutely disgusting.

This is America. We don't have those pesky things like human rights or dignity.

Fixed.

Also, did everybody suddenly forget the principle of "Innocent until proven guilty" and the fact that the alleged criminal needs a trial before we can start trying to punish him?

I'm not sure about the US, but in Canada I believe people can request protective custody. I'm not sure on exactly how it works, but it's probably a lot like solitary confinement or super-max security for the prisoner's own good.

Same thing here. However, I think it is automatic for someone spending life for a crime this heinous.

Also, did everybody suddenly forget the principle of "Innocent until proven guilty" and the fact that the alleged criminal needs a trial before we can start trying to punish him?

Another issue that should be changed in our society. He has confessed flat out said he did it and how he did it. There should be no presumed innocence when someone confesses. It is an oxymoron.

Another issue that should be changed in our society. He has confessed flat out said he did it and how he did it. There should be no presumed innocence when someone confesses. It is an oxymoron.

False confessions. Forced confessions.

No.

False confessions. Forced confessions.

No.


Neither of which apply to this case. He volunteered his surrender and confession. It is an oxymoron to presume his innocence.

Same thing here. However, I think it is automatic for someone spending life for a crime this heinous.

Good. I'm against the culture of brutality that is allowed to fester in prisons, but doubly so when someone is subject to vigilante justice behind bars. If you're going to enter someone into an environment where you know they will be raped, beaten, or murdered, it's not much different from having them raped, beaten or murdered outright.

And that is just not right, anymore than the death penalty would be. Our prison system is absolutely disgusting.

So, how would you improve it? Swimming pools, hot and cold running hookers, conjugal visits, steak and lobster dinners...??? These are criminals man. They have broken our law and they should be punished. We need to take lessons from Sheriff Joe Aprio http://www.cnn.com/US/9907/27/tough.sheriff/ and maybe, just maybe they wouldn't want to come back.

If you think some likely insane father killing his son is bad, how about thousands upon thousands of people dying around the world because of a lack of food, water, or access to cheap and effective medicine?

Why are you de-sensitized to the suffering of millions, yet one boy attracts so much attention?

People like being able to subject others to intense blame and hatred. I think it makes them feel better about themselves.

Starvation and disease are caused by neglect and apathy, which most of us in the first world are guilty of. It's a lot less fun to get worked up over suffering when you're the one causing it, directly or otherwise.

Whenever I get close to changing my mind about the death penalty, something like this happens http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327916,00.html :mad:
How can any father stomp a three month old child to death? If anyone deserves the death penalty, this man does. How can anyone say otherwise?

If you think some likely insane father killing his son is bad, how about thousands upon thousands of people dying around the world because of a lack of food, water, or access to cheap and effective medicine?

Why are you de-sensitized to the suffering of millions, yet one boy attracts so much attention?

Also, did everybody suddenly forget the principle of "Innocent until proven guilty" and the fact that the alleged criminal needs a trial before we can start trying to punish him?

I never ever said he shouldn't have a fair trial. I said that the death penalty should be given if he is found guilty. The hell with life in prison for this scum.

So, how would you improve it? Swimming pools, hot and cold running hookers, conjugal visits, steak and lobster dinners...??? These are criminals man. They have broken our law and they should be punished. We need to take lessons from Sheriff Joe Aprio http://www.cnn.com/US/9907/27/tough.sheriff/ and maybe, just maybe they wouldn't want to come back.

No criminal commits a crime assuming they will get caught, and turning our prisons into Victorian asylums isn't going to reduce crime. The factors that allow crime to breed and prosper, like poverty, poor education, and a culture that glorifies violence, will always lead to more criminals. It's only by addressing these circumstances that we can truly lead to a mostly crime-free society. There will be exceptions, of course, but there will never be a world completely free of crime.

So, how would you improve it? Swimming pools, hot and cold running hookers, conjugal visits, steak and lobster dinners...??? These are criminals man. They have broken our law and they should be punished. We need to take lessons from Sheriff Joe Aprio http://www.cnn.com/US/9907/27/tough.sheriff/ and maybe, just maybe they wouldn't want to come back.

I would improve it by implimenting a wide-spread rehabilitation system instead of a punishment system. Remember, you don't forfeit your humanity just because you commit a crime.

If you think some likely insane father killing his son is bad, how about thousands upon thousands of people dying around the world because of a lack of food, water, or access to cheap and effective medicine?

Why are you de-sensitized to the suffering of millions, yet one boy attracts so much attention?

Why would you presume that the OP isn't just as disgusted and outraged by thousands upon thousands of people dying around the world because of a lack of food, water, or access to cheap and effective medicine? How do you know he is de-sensitized to others sufferings?

I am furious with this scum bag, I am also just as furious that many nations squander their responsibility to take care of their people. :confused:

People like being able to subject others to intense blame and hatred. I think it makes them feel better about themselves.

Starvation and disease are caused by neglect and apathy, which most of us in the first world are guilty of. It's a lot less fun to get worked up over suffering when you're the one causing it, directly or otherwise.

Well I am essentially arguing that it is bad for one to obsess the actions of one likely insane individual who likely could not have been stopped anyways, while millions upon millions of people are subjected to great suffering, much of which could be alleviated if people started caring.

I never ever said he shouldn't have a fair trial. I said that the death penalty should be given if he is found guilty. The hell with life in prison for this scum.

So you want him to be found guilty first, but he's already scum in your eyes.

In your mind, he's already a dead man.

Another issue that should be changed in our society. He has confessed flat out said he did it and how he did it. There should be no presumed innocence when someone confesses. It is an oxymoron.

The first thing his lawyer will do is try to get the confession thrown out. If that fails (and I hope it will) the plea will be "not guilty by reason of insanity or reduced mental capacity." Then they will bring all the whiteness’ to testify how bad his upbringing was, how he was mistreated by society, and how this was not his fault. It was the baby's fault because the baby wouldn't stop crying. How sick, how sad, but that's what the lawyer will do.

False confessions. Forced confessions.

No.

The crime was committed in Texas and the guy turned himself in up in PA. The cops in PA would have no reason to force or falsify a confession. Their only obligation was to return the suspect to Texas.

The crime was committed in Texas and the guy turned himself in up in PA. The cops in PA would have no reason to force or falsify a confession. Their only obligation was to return the suspect to Texas.

Not the point. I was talking about overall. He suggested removing trials in case of confessions, and I presumed he meant for that to be put into policy across the nation, which would be a very bad idea, for the reasons I stated.

If you think some likely insane father killing his son is bad, how about thousands upon thousands of people dying around the world because of a lack of food, water, or access to cheap and effective medicine?

Why are you de-sensitized to the suffering of millions, yet one boy attracts so much attention?

That's OP. Why not start another post if you want to discuss that?

Why would you presume that the OP isn't just as disgusted and outraged by thousands upon thousands of people dying around the world because of a lack of food, water, or access to cheap and effective medicine? How do you know he is de-sensitized to others sufferings?

I am furious with this scum bag, I am also just as furious that many nations squander their responsibility to take care of their people. :confused:

The OP has not made a thread yet, to my knowledge, about how disgusted he/she is about the problems of the world, yet he/she has done so for this one case.

The first thing his lawyer will do is try to get the confession thrown out. If that fails (and I hope it will) the plea will be "not guilty by reason of insanity or reduced mental capacity." Then they will bring all the whiteness’ to testify how bad his upbringing was, how he was mistreated by society, and how this was not his fault. It was the baby's fault because the baby wouldn't stop crying. How sick, how sad, but that's what the lawyer will do.

You are right of course. And again I am sick of this nonsense. He confessed, I personally think that should be enough. A fast track to the end of his existence is what should happen.

I personally don't see any reason for our society to assume that a confession is not valid. If that is how we are going to treat confessions what is the point of anyone ever trying to get one in any case?

Do we really not care if someone admits to a crime?? How absurd.

The first thing his lawyer will do is try to get the confession thrown out. If that fails (and I hope it will) the plea will be "not guilty by reason of insanity or reduced mental capacity." Then they will bring all the whiteness’ to testify how bad his upbringing was, how he was mistreated by society, and how this was not his fault. It was the baby's fault because the baby wouldn't stop crying. How sick, how sad, but that's what the lawyer will do.

Do tell how you know that the man did it because the baby was crying.

Are you witholding information from us, or making up bullshit?

Because I expect our government to be held to a standard higher than murderers?

Duh?

Some people need to be killed.

I would improve it by implimenting a wide-spread rehabilitation system instead of a punishment system. Remember, you don't forfeit your humanity just because you commit a crime.

Rehabilitation has been tried and does not work in most cases. In order to be rehabilitated the person must want to be rehabilitated. Unfortunately, many criminals don't want to be rehabilitated.

The criminals have already proven their inhumanity to their fellow man by committing crimes. They didn't give a damn about the victim. Unfortunately, victims often suffer more than the criminal does.

That's OP. Why not start another post if you want to discuss that?

Do explain how a completely restricting threads to the OP is beneficial. I am criticizing your view of the death penalty, how you are willing to kill some likely insane man for your concept of justice, while also simultaneously allowing for the domination of suffering of those truly innocent of any crime, other than the crime of being born in the wrong place to the wrong parents. You condone murder, yet support the death penalty.

And if you really want, I can extrapolate from my points to what we really must kill.

Current neo-liberal policies.

You are right of course. And again I am sick of this nonsense. He confessed, I personally think that should be enough. A fast track to the end of his existence is what should happen.

I personally don't see any reason for our society to assume that a confession is not valid. If that is how we are going to treat confessions what is the point of anyone ever trying to get one in any case?

Do we really not care if someone admits to a crime?? How absurd.

There are people who will confess to crimes they could not have committed. It's not that uncommon.

Not the point. I was talking about overall. He suggested removing trials in case of confessions, and I presumed he meant for that to be put into policy across the nation, which would be a very bad idea, for the reasons I stated.

I agree with you. A confession is not a reason to waive a trial. There are such things a false and forced confessions. I don't see that in this case however and we should move quickly toward a trial.

Rehabilitation has been tried and does not work in most cases. In order to be rehabilitated the person must want to be rehabilitated. Unfortunately, many criminals don't want to be rehabilitated.

The criminals have already proven their inhumanity to their fellow man by committing crimes. They didn't give a damn about the victim. Unfortunately, victims often suffer more than the criminal does.

Statistics on failed rehabilitation?

You cannot prove that the criminal doesn't care or doesn't suffer from committing the crime. Your logic against criminals is the same sort used by racial supremacists (and others) to justify genocides. You attempt to estabilish an "inhuman" other, one that deserves to be wiped out, and this is inherently bad.

The OP has not made a thread yet, to my knowledge, about how disgusted he/she is about the problems of the world, yet he/she has done so for this one case.

That's exactly why he suggested you start a thread on the matter.

Yes, because one asshole killing his own kid justifies the countless numbers of wrongful convictions who have been executed or are awaiting execution.

:rolleyes:

Statistics on failed rehabilitation?

You cannot prove that the criminal doesn't care or doesn't suffer from committing the crime. Your logic against criminals is the same sort used by racial supremacists (and others) to justify genocides. You attempt to estabilish an "inhuman" other, one that deserves to be wiped out, and this is inherently bad.

On the same token, you can't prove that a criminal does care or that he does suffer. Also, to my knowledge, none of the comments made by Celtlund seemed to be any sort used by racial supremacists.

Yes, because one asshole killing his own kid justifies the countless numbers of wrongful convictions who have been executed or are awaiting execution.

:rolleyes:

Supporting capital punishment =/= supporting wrongful convictions.

Obviously executing the innocent is not an intended purpose of capital punishment. In much the same way that getting beaten and/or raped in the shower is not an intended purpose of imprisonment.

You are right of course. And again I am sick of this nonsense. He confessed, I personally think that should be enough. A fast track to the end of his existence is what should happen.

I personally don't see any reason for our society to assume that a confession is not valid. If that is how we are going to treat confessions what is the point of anyone ever trying to get one in any case?

Do we really not care if someone admits to a crime?? How absurd.

A confession can be a very quick way to a conviction, especially in cases that have little other evidence. Unfortunately, there are documented cases of people who have given false confessions who have been convicted of crimes it was later found they did not commit. There are also documented cases of forced confessions that resulted in convictions of people who did not commit the crime.

Police should try to get confessions because that makes convictions easier, but there are very strict rules that must be followed and no deviation from those rules can be tolerated.

Unfortunately, there have been people who were guilty and confessed who went free on appeal because the police didn't follow or bent the rules. I have no reason to believe this to be true in this case, but we must let the legal system take its course.

Let's have a fair and open trial and if the bastard is found guilty, let's quickly "free him form his earthly bonds."

Do tell how you know that the man did it because the baby was crying.

Are you witholding information from us, or making up bullshit?

1. Will you please read what I said.

2. Will you please quit trolling in this thread.

3. Thank you.

On the same token, you can't prove that a criminal does care or that he does suffer. Also, to my knowledge, none of the comments made by Celtlund seemed to be any sort used by racial supremacists.

Thus it becomes a null point, which is fine with me, I am removing offense from Celtlund.

The way Celtlund allows him/herself to justify killing people is the same way that the Nazis did sixty years ago. They convinced Germans that Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals, and other groups were less human than other Germans. In a similar fashion, Celtlund said on the last page that the criminals showed their "inhumanity", the only way Celtlund can justify the killing of people is by making them less human, and that is where Celtlund attempted to do so. By saying that they do not care about their victims, Celtlund attempted to set them up as demonic and evil, allowing him/herself to think it just to have them killed. Ultimately, both use the same logic to condone slaughter.

And we haven't even gotten to cost analysis of the death penalty, and the chance of executing innocents.

That's exactly why he suggested you start a thread on the matter.

That is how I am applying my criticism and proving that you do not care, because you haven't made such a thread.

...
Let's have a fair and open trial and if the bastard is found guilty, let's quickly "free him form his earthly bonds."

Again, here's the problem. He's a bastard to you before he has been convicted, in other words, you have already convicted him in your mind.

(I am talking about in your POV) They may not officially be guilty, yet but by the end of the trial, they will be. Stalin would be proud of you.

1. Will you please read what I said.

2. Will you please quit trolling in this thread.

3. Thank you.

WTF?

At your request I have moved my focus entirely on the death penalty, posting probably five unanswered posts on the death penalty, and you accuse me of trolling!?

Why don't you read my arguments and actually respond to them.

Thus it becomes a null point, which is fine with me, I am removing offense from Celtlund.

The way Celtlund allows him/herself to justify killing people is the same way that the Nazis did sixty years ago. They convinced Germans that Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals, and other groups were less human than other Germans. In a similar fashion, Celtlund said on the last page that the criminals showed their "inhumanity", the only way Celtlund can justify the killing of people is by making them less human, and that is where Celtlund attempted to do so. By saying that they do not care about their victims, Celtlund attempted to set them up as demonic and evil, allowing him/herself to think it just to have them killed. Ultimately, both use the same logic to condone slaughter.

And we haven't even gotten to cost analysis of the death penalty, and the chance of executing innocents.

But isn't it inhuman to kill another person? Yes? Then there was nothing wrong with his statement. When the government decides to execute a criminal, it is not in the same rationale as the Nazi's, rather, it is a matter of security of the State. Usually, the death penalty is reserved for vicious crimes, crimes that ordinary imprisonment would seem...too lenient. And, in some cases, as I have previously stated, some people need to be killed.

Cost? $.30 (cost of a single .45 round)

Yes, because one asshole killing his own kid justifies the countless numbers of wrongful convictions who have been executed or are awaiting execution.

:rolleyes:

See Gauth, that is my dilemma. I know there have been people who were convicted of capital crimes who were later exonerated by other evidence (DNA) that was not available at the time of their conviction. That is one hell of a good argument against the death penalty. No innocent person should be put to death.

On the other hand, there are scumbags like this one. Scumbags who have committed equally heinous crimes, have been convicted, and are guilty (with DNA proof). I don't think they should be taking up space on this planet.

Do you understand why I'm struggling with this?

Rehabilitation has been tried and does not work in most cases. In order to be rehabilitated the person must want to be rehabilitated. Unfortunately, many criminals don't want to be rehabilitated.

The criminals have already proven their inhumanity to their fellow man by committing crimes. They didn't give a damn about the victim. Unfortunately, victims often suffer more than the criminal does.

Statistics on failed rehabilitation?

You cannot prove that the criminal doesn't care or doesn't suffer from committing the crime. Your logic against criminals is the same sort used by racial supremacists (and others) to justify genocides. You attempt to estabilish an "inhuman" other, one that deserves to be wiped out, and this is inherently bad.

Thus it becomes a null point, which is fine with me, I am removing offense from Celtlund.

The way Celtlund allows him/herself to justify killing people is the same way that the Nazis did sixty years ago. They convinced Germans that Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals, and other groups were less human than other Germans. In a similar fashion, Celtlund said on the last page that the criminals showed their "inhumanity", the only way Celtlund can justify the killing of people is by making them less human, and that is where Celtlund attempted to do so. By saying that they do not care about their victims, Celtlund attempted to set them up as demonic and evil, allowing him/herself to think it just to have them killed. Ultimately, both use the same logic to condone slaughter.

And we haven't even gotten to cost analysis of the death penalty, and the chance of executing innocents.

Again, here's the problem. He's a bastard to you before he has been convicted, in other words, you have already convicted him in your mind.

(I am talking about in your POV) They may not officially be guilty, yet but by the end of the trial, they will be. Stalin would be proud of you.

Here's everything condensed, since otherwise you seem to think I'm trolling.

Here's everything condensed, since otherwise you seem to think I'm trolling.

Seem to think you are a troll? No, I will not allow you to bait me!

http://communitiesonline.homestead.com/files/troll_2.jpg

But isn't it inhuman to kill another person? Yes? Then there was nothing wrong with his statement. When the government decides to execute a criminal, it is not in the same rationale as the Nazi's, rather, it is a matter of security of the State. Usually, the death penalty is reserved for vicious crimes, crimes that ordinary imprisonment would seem...too lenient. And, in some cases, as I have previously stated, some people need to be killed.

Cost? $.30 (cost of a single .45 round)


Celtlund has assumed guilty until proven innocent. Under such a philosophy, any potential criminal is dehumanized, thus making them a disposable object, things that can be killed.

And you're willing to sacrifice innocent lives at that point? You can never guarantee that innocents won't be killed under the death penalty.

And no, applying the death penalty costs millions (or at the very least hundreds of thousands) more than life without parole. The trials and appeal process are extremely expensive, and most people sit on death row for 10 years anyways.

And generally injection is used, which I believe is over $10 (perhaps its 6-10, honestly can't remember). Ultimately, it's not where the real cost comes in though.

See Gauth, that is my dilemma. I know there have been people who were convicted of capital crimes who were later exonerated by other evidence (DNA) that was not available at the time of their conviction. That is one hell of a good argument against the death penalty. No innocent person should be put to death.

On the other hand, there are scumbags like this one. Scumbags who have committed equally heinous crimes, have been convicted, and are guilty (with DNA proof). I don't think they should be taking up space on this planet.

Do you understand why I'm struggling with this?

For the last time, ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"?

Celtlund has assumed guilty until proven innocent. Under such a philosophy, any potential criminal is dehumanized, thus making them a disposable object, things that can be killed.

And you're willing to sacrifice innocent lives at that point? You can never guarantee that innocents won't be killed under the death penalty.

And no, applying the death penalty costs millions (or at the very least hundreds of thousands) more than life without parole. The trials and appeal process are extremely expensive, and most people sit on death row for 10 years anyways.

And generally injection is used, which I believe is over $10 (perhaps its 6-10, honestly can't remember). Ultimately, it's not where the real cost comes in though.

I am not for the killing of innocent people, but just because there are occasionally wrongful convictions does not make the death penalty as a whole a deplorable practice. As for the cost, I do know that it costs millions, I'm not stupid, so speak to me in a better tone. That entire process is the reason why it is so costly. It is actually unconstitutional to allow such lengthy waits to be executed.

"Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

I am not for the killing of innocent people, but just because there are occasionally wrongful convictions does not make the death penalty as a whole a deplorable practice. As for the cost, I do know that it costs millions, I'm not stupid, so speak to me in a better tone. That entire process is the reason why it is so costly. It is actually unconstitutional to allow such lengthy waits to be executed.

"Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

I would say the point in this case is that someone can't be held by the government for something for an unlimited amount of time. It says nothing about appeals.

And if we remove the appeals process, it will only lead to the execution of more innocents. Not a good situation either way.

I would say the point in this case is that someone can't be held by the government for something for an unlimited amount of time. It says nothing about appeals.

And if we remove the appeals process, it will only lead to the execution of more innocents. Not a good situation either way.

I think the appeals process should be changed. That way, there is still due process and law-abiding tax payers don't have to pay as much. But I'm not a lawyer (nor do I wish to be) so I will leave that task to more qualified individuals.

Seem to think you are a troll? No, I will not allow you to bait me!

http://communitiesonline.homestead.com/files/troll_2.jpg

:rolleyes:

I guess if you can't answer me, accusing me of trolling is your best option.

I think the appeals process should be changed. That way, there is still due process and law-abiding tax payers don't have to pay as much. But I'm not a lawyer (nor do I wish to be) so I will leave that task to more qualified individuals.

I agree. For state crimes one appeal to the state appellate court. One appeal to the state supreme court.

For federal crimes one appeal to the federal district court. One appeal to the Federal appellate court. One appeal to the Supreme Court of the US.

Only one reason for appeal may be heard so you can't appeal because your lawyer slept during the trial then appeal because the death penalty is cruel and unusual.

The first appeal must be heard or rejected within six months of the conviction and each subsequent appeal must be heard or rejected within six months of the previous appeal.

Whenever I get close to changing my mind about the death penalty, something like this happens
So you need to make a choice: Risk that innocent get executed, or accept that that a criminal like this spends the rest of his life in prison. Why would the last part be unacceptable to you?

Are you suggesting it will be worse for him to spend his life in prison where he will remember what he has done? What if he has no remorse?
How does remorse become a factor?

Yes. He will be raped. Badly.

Real prisoners don't take kindly to people that hurt kids, if I'm not mistaken.
It's a half-truth. The statistics show that cases of prison rape isn't that prevalent - yet those who hurt children aren't treated well by other inmates due to some warped idea of prisoner hierarchy.

And it's something we should try to stop from happening.


False confessions. Forced confessions.Neither of which apply to this case. He volunteered his surrender and confession. It is an oxymoron to presume his innocence.
How do you know? You don't. You assume too much. Hell, he might even be protecting the real criminal for all we know.

So even with a volunteered surrender and conffesion he should be presumed innocent. There might be other things in play, you see. What if he's insane, for example...
I never ever said he shouldn't have a fair trial. I said that the death penalty should be given if he is found guilty. The hell with life in prison for this scum.
You seem to have made up your mind about his guilt though.

And why not life in prison?
The first thing his lawyer will do is try to get the confession thrown out. If that fails (and I hope it will)
Why? Don't you want the real criminal brought to justice? What if someone else did it, and the confession is false?

the plea will be "not guilty by reason of insanity or reduced mental capacity." Then they will bring all the whiteness’ to testify how bad his upbringing was, how he was mistreated by society, and how this was not his fault. It was the baby's fault because the baby wouldn't stop crying. How sick, how sad, but that's what the lawyer will do.
Why is it sick and sad? Are you saying that he doesn't deserve a defense? Or that the courts are stupid and will swallow it?

You know you can try to change things if it's the latter?
You are right of course. And again I am sick of this nonsense. He confessed, I personally think that should be enough. A fast track to the end of his existence is what should happen.

I personally don't see any reason for our society to assume that a confession is not valid. If that is how we are going to treat confessions what is the point of anyone ever trying to get one in any case?

Do we really not care if someone admits to a crime?? How absurd.
We do care, but without evidence to back it up it's just as much worth as if I told the police that I saw you do something illegal last night. It won't be sufficient to convict you of anything - especially if you can produce evidence to contradict me, including your own testimony.

I agree with you. A confession is not a reason to waive a trial. There are such things a false and forced confessions. I don't see that in this case however and we should move quickly toward a trial.
Just because you don't see it based on a Fox news article... Well, methinks you assume to much and that we should leave it up to the courts to decide.

Because I expect our government to be held to a standard higher than murderers? That's always the same rubbish argument. The people, i.e. the state, have the right to permanently remove people from society if they see their crimes severe enough. That has nothing to do at all with joining a murderer's standard.

Remember, you don't forfeit your humanity just because you commit a crime.Yes you do. Humanity means to live up to the basic ideals of humankind. Once you commit a crime you give up those ideals and leave humanity behind.

Yes you do. Humanity means to live up to the basic ideals of humankind. Once you commit a crime you give up those ideals and leave humanity behind.

No, not at all.

To murder a murderer is hypocrisy.

There are far worse things than death.

In space, no one can hear you scream.

No criminal commits a crime assuming they will get caught, and turning our prisons into Victorian asylums isn't going to reduce crime. The factors that allow crime to breed and prosper, like poverty, poor education, and a culture that glorifies violence, will always lead to more criminals. It's only by addressing these circumstances that we can truly lead to a mostly crime-free society. There will be exceptions, of course, but there will never be a world completely free of crime.

Top post. Agree completely.

The other issue with the death penalty is the message it sends to society. The message is "If someone does something horribly wrong, they deserve to be killed". Unfortunately, certain parts of society aren't 100% correct in the head. What they think is horribly wrong, is a bit warped.
For advocates of the death penalty, name me one place after a death penalty has been introduced, that crime that attracted the death penalty has decreased. You'll have a hard time finding one.

In space, no one can hear you scream.:D

No, not at all.Once you commit a severe crime you drop humanity. Biologically remaining a human is no merit and no value.
And what's the alternative? Do you want murderers in your society?

Once you commit a severe crime you drop humanity. Biologically remaining a human is no merit and no value.
That's just silly.

I'm sorry, but you just can't measure humanity like that, neither will any "humanity" simply evaporate due to a criminal act.
And what's the alternative? Do you want murderers in your society?

Why not? It's nothing new.

I would rather ask a question about whether or not it's a danger of people killing again.

Once you commit a severe crime you drop humanity. Biologically remaining a human is no merit and no value.
By whose standards of severity?
And what's the alternative? Do you want murderers in your society?

Do you want killers governing yours? If killing is such a terrible and awful thing, deserving of death, then what kind of society kills its criminals?

Just because you don't see it based on a Fox news article... Well, methinks you assume to much and that we should leave it up to the courts to decide.

You are right you know. Quite right.

I'm pretty sure that my government kills people.

http://www.gdls.com/procurement/books/pqa_3000_files/image023.jpg

But perhaps yours does not.
Very rarely.



Killing in and of itself is not always terrible. Murder however is.

The only difference is the law. Murder is simply illegal killing.

Do you want killers governing yours?

I'm pretty sure that my government kills people.

http://www.gdls.com/procurement/books/pqa_3000_files/image023.jpg

But perhaps yours does not.

If killing is such a terrible and awful thing, deserving of death, then what kind of society kills its criminals?

Killing in and of itself is not always terrible. Murder however is.

By whose standards of severity?The respective society's.


Do you want killers governing yours? If killing is such a terrible and awful thing, deserving of death, then what kind of society kills its criminals?It's not necessarily the act of killing that is deserving of death, it's the mindset and intent behind.

Very rarely.

Really? Where do you live, anyway?

The only difference is the law. Murder is simply illegal killing.

Well, there you have it. But that's an important distinction to society, just like how taxation is legalized mugging.

Also, there does tend to be a difference in intent between someone who kills in self defense versus someone who kills because it's fun. I think it's important to note that kind of thing rather than trying to simplify it all down to "killing=bad" or something.

You are right you know. Quite right.

I wub you too :fluffle:

It is god's job to judge this man. It is our job to take him to God's court.

Because I expect our government to be held to a standard higher than murderers?

Duh?

Besides, once the general population finds out what he's in for the STATE won't need to kill him.

Besides, once the general population finds out what he's in for the STATE won't need to kill him.

It's so nice that you endorse rape and feel good about yourself as long as you can "subcontract" the rapists.

It is our job to take him to God's court.

The Vatican?

To murder a murderer is hypocrisy.

How is it hypocrisy? (also the administering of the death penalty is not murder)

It's so nice that you endorse rape and feel good about yourself as long as you can "subcontract" the rapists.

He mentioned kill not rape. It's no different from your willingness to allow the government to kill on your behalf.

Lethal injection is too mild and unsymbolic. Bring back the guillotine. Then people will realize the price of murder. And apply it to all violent crimes, not just murder. We'll be short of thugs in no time.

Socially, I agree with you. If we are going to have the death penalty, it should be on a federal (not state) basis. Additionally, we should get rid of the 'cruel and unusual' punishment crap (even if it only applies to the death penalty).

Religiously I feel that a criminal can indeed recieve forgivness for their misdeeds, so killing them would potentially rob them of salvation, then again, America is not run in accordance with my religious views.

This is why I have seperate standards, my faith notwithstanding, I feel that criminals of a certain magnitude should be flogged, hanged, drawn-and-quartered, guillotined, or what have you. Lethal injection is a load of crap.

"Yes, we're going to take your life in reparations for your misdeeds, but we'll feed you an excellent meal beforehand, and try not to hurt as much as we can."

Waht is that?

(also the administering of the death penalty is not murder)

Technically, no it isn't. Then again, 'technically' is all that really matters in this case. It isn't murder if I defend my family from armed burglars attempting to harm my family (in the process killing them), that is self-defense.

Murder is the cold-blooded killing of someone.

Death administered under the law is intended to be impassionate. Without passion, on cannot have cold-blood.

Taht or look up the definitions for Murder, and
Execution, and see if they are the same word for word (which, I can say they aren't, regardless of me not looking them up).

EDIT: I'm agreeing with you Dyokovo... not sure if my post conveyed that well.

<snip>EDIT: I'm agreeing with you Dyokovo... not sure if my post conveyed that well.

So you're agreeing with a question?

How is it hypocrisy?

:D

That made me smile.

(as far as I understand you, you meant execute them, and let God decide, correct?)

Either that or he's advocating sending him to The Vatican to be tried :p

It is god's job to judge this man. It is our job to take him to God's court.

:D

That made me smile.

(as far as I understand you, you meant execute them, and let God decide, correct?)

Lethal injection is too mild and unsymbolic. Bring back the guillotine. Then people will realize the price of murder. And apply it to all violent crimes, not just murder. We'll be short of thugs in no time.

You mean like the orderly paradise of seventeenth century England?

Waht is that?
Indeed. What was that post? It smacked of the utmost hypocrisy from you.

You would protect the "lives" of clumps of cells that can barely be called a potential lifeform, but you would gladly torture and kill those who are most assuredly human.

Look. The death penalty does not do anything good. It has been concisely proven again and again that it does not act as a deterrent, that it does not lower the rate of violent crime(and in fact violent crime usually goes up in areas with a death penalty. Of course this does not prove some sort of causation, but it is data that cannot be ignored.) It also sends a message, in my mind, that we still haven't advanced to the point where we actually try to redeem people.

Isn't Christianity full of redemption messages? Why is it that so few Christians actually want to redeem those who would commit sins and instead punish them in horrible ways?

The simple fact is, you cannot stop crime by treating criminals as inhuman savages. If that could have stopped crime, crime would have ceased to exist a long time ago. We understand a lot more about how the human mind works now. We need to use that knowledge. Psychology tells us that when you lock someone up for five years, keep them from being able to work on skills or otherwise give them a horrible financial situation once they are released, they will be angry. Extremely angry, with the sort of resentment and hatred that takes years to build, and oh they had the time to build it! We essentially CAUSE most of our reoffenses by treating criminals this way.

Instead, we should target the sources of crime. Do our best to eliminate poverty--and this can be done, so long as we take some more money from the superrich. (We're talking about people who make billions upon billions of dollars a year and taking away a few million. That's chump change.)--improve education, implement wide-spread policies of rehabilitation instead of outright punishment and overall improve our society so that criminal activity has no point.

I have always believed in the "cosmic justice" of the death penalty. In fact, I think there are many crimes that merit the death penalty - Armed robbery, rape, murder, car theft, walking on my lawn, etc...

Unfortunately, the death penalty should never be carried out because of the imperfections of human justice. Mistakenly executing someone for a crime they didn't commit outweighs all other considerations.

So you're agreeing with a question?

Umm, no. Had you perchance read my post, maybe you would have noticed that I quoted what you wrote in parentheses (sp?), rather than your question.

So, again, no I did not agree with a question, but rather the statement... in fact, the statement that I quoted.

You would protect the "lives" of clumps of cells that can barely be called a potential lifeform, but you would gladly torture and kill those who are most assuredly human.

Yes, I would protect the 'clump' of unborn human cells that have not raped, murdered and tortured (and I've never heard of that actually happening.

I don't agree with the death penalty (socially, not religiously, in case you hadn't carefully read my post, as I suspect you to not have done) because it is a deterent, but rather because these people have wronged society to such a degree as to be slaughtered. It is reciprocity, not a deterent.

Religiously, I am all for redemption, which is why you'll note that overall, I disagree with the death penalty, but if we are going to have it at all, why should we pull punches? Why shouldn't it be a federal matter rather than a per state determined affair?

It isn't hypocrisy at all, again citing you're partial attempt at understanding my post. What I am asking is, what is it that fetus's have doen to deserve crueller torture than rapists, or mass murderers? An injection is equal to dismemberment? don't think so.

Now, before you 'snip' this post in a quote, please read it a few times, so that you might, possibly have some small chance of grasping what I am intending to say.

Besides, once the general population finds out what he's in for the STATE won't need to kill him.

...which is also something we should struggle to avoid.

Whenever I get close to changing my mind about the death penalty, something like this happens http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327916,00.html :mad:
How can any father stomp a three month old child to death? If anyone deserves the death penalty, this man does. How can anyone say otherwise?I fail to see how killing him is going to make things better...

Because I expect our government to be held to a standard higher than murderers?

Duh?

Winner of "Most intelligent post in thread" Award

I fail to see how killing him is going to make things better...the same would be true for any other measure. punishment is not intended to better things but to punish. every misconduct must be paid for.

the same would be true for any other measure. punishment is not intended to better things but to punish. every misconduct must be paid for.That's just fucking stupid.

That's just fucking stupid.no it isn't. what do you think punishment is good for? it never makes anything better, so why should death penalty be different?

no it isn't. what do you think punishment is good for? it never makes anything better, so why should death penalty be different?Punishment tends to serve as a deterrence, in order to discourage bad behavior; punishment without purpose of making things better is just fucking stupid.

Either you're arguing that punishment makes no sense whatsoever, which is also just fucking stupid, as without any sanctions against misbehavior, there will be too many free-riders that will destroy that system; or you're arguing that punishment is supposed to only make people pay, which in turn is just fucking stupid.

Punishment tends to serve as a deterrence, in order to discourage bad behavior; punishment without purpose of making things better is just fucking stupid.

Either you're arguing that punishment makes no sense whatsoever, which is also just fucking stupid, as without any sanctions against misbehavior, there will be too many free-riders that will destroy that system; or you're arguing that punishment is supposed to only make people pay, which in turn is just fucking stupid.wtf? deterrence?? how would deterrence even have anything to do with the one who is punished? and having people pay for their actions is in no way stupid. the purpose of punishment is to punish.

wtf? deterrence?? how would deterrence even have anything to do with the one who is punished? and having people pay for their actions is in no way stupid. the purpose of punishment is to punish.

No! Everyone knows that the point of punishment is to raise cultural awareness, and to make friends. (I figured that if I just pulled two goals at random I might sound as intelligent as Laerod in this case.)

Punishment serves to punish... thats why it's called... wait for it... *drumroll*... Punishment, not deterrencement.

If punishment happens to deter crime, hey, so much the better, that is then, less people who should be punished because they deserve it.

If we punish only to deter, then why punish at all? Because in such a case, it is clear that the action being punished isn't itself wrong (somehow), but that it should be nonetheless discouraged. For example, say that driving a car five miles under the speed limit is universally recognized as not morally (or socially) wrong, yet someone passes a law to punish all people who srive 5 mi. under the speed limit. Why? Well, not because it is wrong, and deserves punishment, of course not, but rather to stop other people from doing it.

That is just freaking stupid.

Punishment, as United B. states quite adequately, serves to punish (it's in the name).

He mentioned kill not rape. It's no different from your willingness to allow the government to kill on your behalf.

He implied rape to me, rape and beating and such. To me that's worse. Capital punishment is a legal form of punishment, not the depraved actions of criminals sexually assaulting and/or killing other criminals.

He implied rape to me, rape and beating and such. To me that's worse. Capital punishment is a legal form of punishment, not the depraved actions of criminals sexually assaulting and/or killing other criminals.

Odd seeing how he mentions killing in his post but never mentions rape or beating.

Odd seeing how he mentions killing in his post but never mentions rape or beating.

1. The criminal here is a convicted baby-killer.
2. The poster specifically said, "once the general population finds out what he's in for the STATE won't need to kill him."
3. The implication here is that the prisoners will harm him. How do they usually harm baby-killers and baby-fuckers, in prison? You tell me.

At any rate, it's a good deal less moral of a thing to advocate (if the poster is indeed advocating it) than capital punishment.

1. The criminal here is a convicted baby-killer.
Suspected, not convicted.

Suspected, not convicted.Admitted, not suspected.

People like being able to subject others to intense blame and hatred. I think it makes them feel better about themselves.

Starvation and disease are caused by neglect and apathy, which most of us in the first world are guilty of. It's a lot less fun to get worked up over suffering when you're the one causing it, directly or otherwise.
Um.. We are?! How so?

Some people need to be killed.

QFT

I'm not sure about the US, but in Canada I believe people can request protective custody. I'm not sure on exactly how it works, but it's probably a lot like solitary confinement or super-max security for the prisoner's own good.

We have that in America too. It consists of the guard showing up, taking the prisoner out of his cell, realizing he forgot the keys to the other cell, going back to get them, maybe having a cup of coffee, heading back to the prisoner, remembering that the prisoner might also like a cup, going back to get another, remembering half-way back that the guy is going to be handcuffed and can't have coffee during the transfer, going back to dump the coffee, and then returning to find the child killer/molester murdered by someone, but no one can tell who because everyone present was inspecting the ceiling while whistling.

Admitted, not suspected.

You know, whenever I see something like this, I am reminded of an incident about..oh...a year and a half ago. See, about a year and a half ago, a man admitted, quite publically, that he was guilty of the killing of a six year old girl. A homicide that, until that moment, had gone unsolved for quite some time.

The same types of accusations against this man here were leveled against that man then. He was called a murdered, people said he should be executed, the usual rhetoric. After all, he confessed, he admited to doing it.

However some time later it was demonstrated that despite his confession, John Mark Karr was not guilty of the death of JonBennet Ramsey, and despite his confession, there was absolutly no evidence he committed that crime.

So tell me, why, in the absence of any further known evidence, should we be so sure this guy did the crime? After all, as Karr quite adequately demonstrated, sometimes crazy people say crazy things.

From my first hand experience in prison I know it is worse than death itself. After a while you want death.

If this was true, people would not appeal death sentences.

But they do. Almost all the time. And almost no one appeals a prison term, demanding death instead.

Think about it. The hyperbole and bombast would be exposed if the reaction to "This is worth than Death!" was generally followed by "well... okay. We'll just kill you, then."

QFT

Which people?

And, in some cases, as I have previously stated, some people need to be killed.




That's the easy part and always has been. The hard part has always been... which ones?

Knowing all that we know about people, and power, giving people the power to decide that others need to be killed is a perilous thing.

Sometimes necessary, but always perilous.

It's a paradox. If we accept that the only valid reason to kill is the preservation of life, than executing a captured murderer, on its own, saves no one. But... then we have just justified the logic of a pre-emptive killing. And a person killed pre-emptively is not *yet* a killer. Can we say, he will be, with 100% certainty?

The biggest mistake is to assume that there is an obvious, easy answer.

Reality is a Koan.

If this was true, people would not appeal death sentences.

But they do. Almost all the time. And almost no one appeals a prison term, demanding death instead.

Think about it. The hyperbole and bombast would be exposed if the reaction to "This is worth than Death!" was generally followed by "well... okay. We'll just kill you, then."...

No. People would still appeal death sentences, because no one wants to die or be in prison, and even if the majority would not out right prefer death, a heck of a lot do. Suicide in prison is not unheard of.

Admitted, not suspected.

Admitted, and suspected.

Admissions aren't flawless, nor the perfect piece of evidence - since they aren't necessarily true.

Regardless, you should learn what "suspected" actually means.

People who support capital punishment are hypocrates.


'For the heinous crime of murder we sentance you to.....DEATH!'

:confused:

How exactly is it hypocritical?

People who support capital punishment are hypocrates.


'For the heinous crime of murder we sentance you to.....DEATH!'

:confused:

Admitted, and suspected.

Admissions aren't flawless, nor the perfect piece of evidence - since they aren't necessarily true.

Regardless, you should learn what "suspected" actually means.blah blah blah :rolleyes:

How exactly is it hypocritical?


You morons only support murder if the state does it. Hypocrate.

People who support capital punishment are hypocrates.

'For the heinous crime of murder we sentance you to.....DEATH!'Killing is not the same as murder.

You morons only support murder if the state does it. Hypocrate.

The irony.

You morons only support murder if the state does it. Hypocrate.

1. personal attacks are unnecessary
2. killing is not necessarily murder

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human person with malice aforethought. Murder is generally distinguished from other forms of homicide by the elements of malice aforethought and the lack of lawful justification.

3. Who says I'm in favor of the death penalty?

The US violent crime figures, compared with the italian, german, or french violent crime figures, hint that the death sentence doesn't scare anyone into not committing violent crimes.

I don't care if it's a deterrant (sp?) or not. That's not why I support it.

Killing a human without need is homicide.Death penalty is not killing a human without need.

Killing is not the same as murder.

Capital Punishment is state-aprooved murder.

1. personal attacks are unnecessary
2. killing is not necessarily murder



3. Who says I'm in favor of the death penalty?


1. I disagree, they are absolutely necessary if idiots start spouting off bullshit.

2. See above.

3. What are you arguing for then?

Death penalty is not killing a human without need.

True.

Death penalty is not killing a human without need.



What purpouse does the death penalty have? Other than making retards like you feel better about yourselves?

How can anyone say otherwise?

I can.

The US violent crime figures, compared with the italian, german, or french violent crime figures, hint that the death sentence doesn't scare anyone into not committing violent crimes.
This means: death sentence is useless.
Killing a human without need is homicide.
I don't want my country to commit homicide.

I don't care if it's a deterrant (sp?) or not. That's not why I support it.

Why do you support it then? If it isn't a deterrent then what point is there to kill them?

Why do you support it then? If it isn't a deterrent then what point is there to kill them?

Vengeance?

What purpouse does the death penalty have? Other than making retards like you feel better about yourselves?

Read the rules regarding flaming.

Why do you support it then? If it isn't a deterrent then what point is there to kill them?

Justice, i.e., retribution.

What purpouse does the death penalty have? Other than making retards like you feel better about yourselves?

So, those of us who are not ignorant (we actually know the meaning of the words we use) are retards and morons?
Good to know. :headbang:

Justice, i.e., retribution.

In other words see: this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13426584&postcount=137).

In other words see: this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13426584&postcount=137).

If you want to call it that, yes.

Capital Punishment is state-aprooved murder.
Fail
1. I disagree, they are absolutely necessary if idiots start spouting off bullshit.
That's called flaming and is against the rules

2. See above.
You didn't read the definition did you?

3. What are you arguing for then?
Trying to relieve you of the burden of ignorance.
You don't seem to be able to comprehend that killing and murder are not the same thing.

If you want to call it that, yes.

Well, it is another way of stating it. While vengeance and retribution don't mean exactly the same thing they are pretty similar. :)

What purpouse does the death penalty have?To remove bad people from the face of the planet. They have already demonstrated that they are not willing to contribute to humanity's progress and rather work against it. Nobody forced them to commit crimes, it was their own decision. There is no need whatsoever to accept such decisions.

To remove bad people from the face of the planet.

I congratulate for the depth of ethical and political philosophy expressed in this post.:rolleyes:

I congratulate for the depth of ethical and political philosophy expressed in this post.:rolleyes:

It's better thanPeople who support capital punishment are hypocrates.
'For the heinous crime of murder we sentance you to.....DEATH!'

I congratulate for the depth of ethical and political philosophy expressed in this post.:rolleyes:there is no depth needed.

To remove bad people from the face of the planet. They have already demonstrated that they are not willing to contribute to humanity's progress and rather work against it. Nobody forced them to commit crimes, it was their own decision. There is no need whatsoever to accept such decisions.



So its acceptable to stoop to their level? Do you also support torture?

Fail

How is it failing? Capital Punisment is just another word for state-sanction murder. Dont get bitchy just because I call a spade a spade.

That's called flaming and is against the rules

So is your face.


You didn't read the definition did you?

You mean the one you made up?


Trying to relieve you of the burden of ignorance.
You don't seem to be able to comprehend that killing and murder are not the same thing.

Yes it is.

A woman kills her husband with a gun. Murder.

Owned.

there is no depth needed.

Right, to you on the Right, depth is a bad word.

So its acceptable to stoop to their level?That's just a buzz phrase. There are no levels. It's only the pursuit of differing interests.

Do you also support torture?No. What does torture have to do with death penalty for severe crimes?

Right, to you on the Right, depth is a bad word.I am definitely not on the Right. But I don't see why a murderer, rapist, environment-destroyer should be given a second chance. Isn't one more than enough?

That's just a buzz phrase. There are no levels. It's only the pursuit of differing interests.

Bullshit. Everytime the state murders a murderer then thay lose their moral high ground. All murdering a merderer does is make the murderee's family feel better.

No. What does torture have to do with death penalty for severe crimes?


Everything. The same THEY R EVIL TERR0RISTS THEY DESERVE IT!!!!!1!!!! sort of arguement is being applied here just substitute 'terrorist' for 'murderer'.

I am definitely not on the Right. But I don't see why a murderer, rapist, environment-destroyer should be given a second chance. Isn't one more than enough?

Sure your're not on the right in the same way that Ann Coulter is on the left.

blah blah blah :rolleyes:

Well said. An eloquent rebuttal, good sir.

So its acceptable to stoop to their level? Do you also support torture?
Hardly the same thing...
How is it failing? Capital Punisment is just another word for state-sanction homicide. Dont get bitchy just because I call a spade a spade.
fixed
You mean the one you made up?
I didn't make it up, that is the definition of murder.
QUOTE=Vaklavia;13426729]Yes it is. A woman kills her husband with a gun. Murder.[/QUOTE]
No, not necessarily. If you are going to use a legal term to try to demonize the death penalty, at least use the correct one: homicide.

This article is on fox news? Did they also report that the killer was black, gay, a democrat, and burnt American flags to heat his house?

...

No. People would still appeal death sentences, because no one wants to die or be in prison, and even if the majority would not out right prefer death, a heck of a lot do. Suicide in prison is not unheard of.

You misunderstood me. People appeal death sentences. That is different from appealing the verdict. They do that also, but the fact is, people on Death Row, if given the option to have the SENTENCE reduced to Life, go for it. Just about all the time. Sure they would prefer the verdict overturned, but when they can not, they still want the sentence overturned.

Yes, some prisoners commit suicide. Maybe some do it because they cannot live with the knowledge of what they have done- every suicide has its own reason. One guard recently committed suicide. Some high school kids commit suicide, it is not evidence that high school is worse than death.

Law of large numbers- you will always find a few wacky exceptions to anything. Not a big deal, in the long run.

A woman kills her husband with a gun. Murder.

Owned.

Rented, more likely. Murder is a very specific legal charge. The actual event, intentional killing of Human by another Human, is homicide. (and here we are already assuming the killing you describe was intentional, it might not have been.) Homicide might be murder, or it might be manslaughter, or it might be justifiable homicide (self defense) or excusable homicide (various odd situations.)