|
|
|
|
|
Nona37
|
Joined: 3/31/2008
Msg: 176 | |
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/23/2008 9:12:22 PM | So you agree with me that people should be entitled to the
least severe punishment, given all the circumstances? You say that
being executed is fair, but you haven't told me how it is at all
logical. We say "don't ever kill", and yet for the government
it's okay. Not logically consistent.
I am not the person you are addressing, my apologies, but I want
to jump in here if I may. :) I disagree with the least severe
punishment in capital murder cases. I believe that once the evidence
is pure and without any reasonable doubt, they should fry their
asses. I do believe that knowing our society will strap you into
a chair and electrocute you to death would be a great deterrent,
don't you think? Before someone says mental illness here...I think
serial killers are more times to none mentally insane to a point,
however, they are so insane that most of them evade the authorities
for years before getting caught, therefore showing they KNOW what
they are doing is wrong, otherwise, why would they hide their
crimes? Fry their asses too.
You speak logic. Please inform me of the logic where someone
murders and rapes and even eats small children is allowed to live?
Where is the logic to that? It's a good thing Japan realized there
is no logic and decided the logical thing was to rid their society
of that monster.
These statements you are making are common gripes about
the justice system. Nobody ever cites its successes. Nobody ever
cites the multitude of cases where a court treats an accused
person with compassion and that person goes on their way to lead a
happy, productive life.
Please inform all of us on this thread what serial killers have
been reformed? To take this further, please inform all of us on
this thread how sick pedophile murders who have eaten their
victims have and can be rehabilitated? They can not be
rehabilitated and the seriousness of their crimes screams for
justice to be paid to the families of the victims who
have to live with the knowledge that their little babies were
brutally raped and then eaten. One more person to think about with
these crimes....did you forget justice for the victims themselves?
Ah, the old "eye for an eye" basis for punishment. What
about the people who kill for compassion? What about those who
help terminally ill people commit suicide? Or the man who
killed his severely disabled daughter who was in constant
pain? Or the men who were shipwrecked and killed one of their
number so that the others could (and did) survive? By your
standards then, those people should be executed, right? Again,
your argument isn't logically consistent.
You are throwing a bunch of eggs into the basket for comparison here,
this is not logical either. Each have to be dealt with individually.
You keep speaking of "logic", but I find your argument far more
distant from logic than the poster you keep accusing of being illogical.
Last I heard, people have a right to life.
The victims had a right to life as well, you forgot about them. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/23/2008 10:51:14 PM |
So you agree with me that people should be entitled to the least severe punishment, given all the circumstances? You say that being executed is fair, but you haven't told me how it is at all logical. We say "don't ever kill", and yet for the government it's okay. Not logically consistent.
No, you misread what I said. I was stating as a quote that you had said that they should get the "least level" of sentince for punishment. Trust me, I'm all for the maximun sentince possible by putting these people to death who do these criminal acts. Who says "don't ever kill" did I miss something here? What is not logical about a person like BTK killer as a example for him to be put to death for the torture that he put innocent victims though. It makes perfect sense to me.
How do you know these things? Do you have statistics? How do you know "hard core criminals" (whatever that means) lose their hardened attitude? Have you surveyed them? You purport to know these things, and yet don't quote any sources or have anything to back up your claims.
I'm talking about the ones who have sat on death row for countless years, appeal after appeal and finally their time is up, game over and they know that they are going to be sent to die. They at all costs wish to avoid being put to death. They will even make the plea ofters at initial sentencing to try and get life behind bars but avoid death. Why do you think that is? Any ideas? It makes perfect sense to me that life behind bars is something that they can handle. They will even admit to guilt, show investigators where they buried the remains of their victims in order to avoid the death penility, why? They fear being put to death and don't want to face that, even though they did not have a care or concern when they took another persons life. I have a crystal clear idea that these people are really cowards when it comes to facing death, they can dole it out, but they sure don't want to face a little needle in the arm themselves do they?
Let me give you a example of a coward. Saddaam Hussein is a perfect example. He had countless numbers of innocent people murdered and when the US soldiers finally found him, he was coward in a hole in the ground, too afraid to face what he knew was coming. Did you look at the footage of him on TV when he knew he was finally going to face death and be hanged by the neck? I'll tell you, it was a HUGE change to from so called "big man" that he thought he was, he had fear in those eyes of his.
Ah, the old "eye for an eye" basis for punishment. What about the people who kill for compassion? What about those who help terminally ill people commit suicide? Or the man who killed his severely disabled daughter who was in constant pain? Or the men who were shipwrecked and killed one of their number so that the others could (and did) survive? By your standards then, those people should be executed, right? Again, your argument isn't logically consistent.
To answer your questions. Kill for compassion? It is what it is, it's murder. Unless a person themselves decides to take their own life, nobody should take anothers life and say that it was a "compassion" killing. Should someone like Jack Kevorkian be considered a hero because he so called helped patients end their lives, no he is a murderer. Nothing that I have stated has been inconsistant, I have maintained all along from the beginning of my posts that the death penility should be in efffect and inforced period, I have not wavered from that.
Last I heard, people have a right to life. Not a right to life except if they happen to kill someone else. Or maybe rape them. Or perhaps commit sedition. Or treason. Or maybe... the list goes on. Just what is it to have a right to life anyway? Is it just a meaningless phrase?
So maybe this above quote from you does answer my question about if you would think BTK killer has a right to life. You think everyone then, no matter how many people they torture, no matter how many lives and families that are shattered because of their actions, you still think some sick freak like BTK has a right to live? Wow, I'm honestly amazed the logic behind some peoples thinking. I guess you would also say that Saddam Hussein or Adolf Hitler had a right to live even though they sent masses of people to their deaths huh? Really rethink what your saying, there is zero logic behind your thinking as it seems as though you defend the murderers more then you do the innocent with your statements.
You ask, what is it to have a right to life? There are many angles and many things can be said here. To sum up a responce that relates to this thread, I will say this. A right to life is having the right to live your life without harm being done to you as long as you extend that to others. The moment you choose to shatter another persons right to their life and murder another human being in cold blood, then you forsake your own life also. A right, a freedom is a privilage that is earned through your own actions. If that bond, trust is broken, you lose that freedom period. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/24/2008 6:03:39 AM | Subject:
<div class="quote"> Criminals are given many times, the least severe judgment against them. It allows people to in many cases, get off very easy for a severe crime that should be dealt with much more serious
Can you provide any such example where you actually sat through the trial and or sentencing of a person, or read transcript of same to support your allegation?
Yes ~ I can ~ but why should I ~ to drive home some point and I don't even know what the point is!
It's been 20 years ~ and I take some liberities ~men and women of jurys are advised to not speak of things. ~ It was a black on white case
The victim was a 14 year old school girl ~ Amy Tha~~~~~. abducted on her walk to school ~ carried to the near lake, ~ tied by the neck and chocked with her own shoes string as she was sodomized and died. ~ The defendant ~ a preachers son, Dewayne ~~~~
As forman of the grand jury ~ I and 11 others listened to much testomony ~ mothers , fathers `many friends, policemen, witness of the abduction ~ and the lab and more photos then necessary ~ the defendent had a past history ~ had beat a man up with a bat to steal his SS check , ~ the victim had brain damage and could ~ not testify ~then there were accounts of the defendent being forcful with the girls at the church ~ ~ several rapes ~ suspected
We listened to a 72 hour time line leading up to the death of Amy ~
It was clear ~ this boy was late with his appointment with Jesus.
I'd gave a 1000.00 dollar to punch his ticket personally ~
I don't know how it ended ~ not my job ~ but this boy had got away with way too much before he came before me. ~ A failed system had been his friend ~ too long.
Dance | |
|
Nona37
|
Joined: 3/31/2008
Msg: 179 | |
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/24/2008 8:13:15 AM | Dance:
Wow, that must have been a very difficult thing to sit through. I was called upon for jury duty once in a murder trial. I was excused upon stating that I believe in capital punishment. I was then informed by the Lawyer that capital punishment is no longer allowed in my state. I then politely asked if "public lynchings were legal"? I was dismissed.
What people fail to understand is that if our nation does not give justice to the victim's families, they will find justice on their own accord, not all, but most will and have. When a loved one has been butchered and tortured and murdered, it's enough to change even a good church going person into something evil. I"m not saying that "backyard justice" is moral, but when someone is tormented with the facts of what has happened to their loved ones, morals go right out the window.
I remember a case in a small town in the South where a man use to habitually beat and torture his wife. The police would stop over of course but all the while, dismissing it as a "lovers spat". This was in the days before our nation really came down on Domestic Violence. The husband progressed in his evil acts aimed at his wife. He graduated from merely beating her to not only beating her but pimping her out to his "friends" and forcing her to have sex with them while he watched and got paid for allowing this to occur. The neighbors turned their heads at the crimes being committed, they did not want to get involved, the police never did anything about this, the woman finally stopped reporting the incidents to the police as well as talking to anyone. She was eventually murdered by her husband, but he did not merely just kill her, that would have been the more humane thing to do, instead, he sodomized her with a baseball bat after beating her to the point where she was still conscious but could not move. The reason he did this to her? She finally refused to have sex with his friends for money.
The husband was arrested and sent to trial. Because of an administrative glitch, he was allowed to walk free. Two nights later, his house burned down, he was in it. Rumor has it the fire department was not in a hurry to run into the house to save him. The locals took their time in calling the fire department as well upon viewing the house was on fire.
Point here? Justice needs to be served through the courts, NOT by our communities, but if the courts do not punish capital crimes to the FULLEST extent of the law, then rest assured, the criminals will face another court where they are already convicted and sentenced and more times to none, they die anyways at thet hands of vigilantes or emotionally tormented family members of victims. Can we blame the families? I say no, blame our court system who thinks that showing mercy to murderer's is humane while ignoring the cries of their victims who are screaming from their graves for justice. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/24/2008 11:22:33 AM |
Can you provide any such example where you actually sat through the trial and or sentencing of a person, or read transcript of same to support your allegation?
Thats a easy one, OJ SIMPSON.  Yes, the entire nation watched that whole trial unfold on TV at the time. I have zero doubt that that guy got away with murder period. Now thats what I call getting off easy with zero justice from the courts. I'm sure most would agree. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/24/2008 11:42:09 AM | How does a man who was acquitted factor into your punishment ideas? He was found to be not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Your basing your finding of guilt on the media hoopla.
Which supports my point, that you have no idea what "evidence" actually is in a court of law. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/24/2008 12:00:05 PM |
How does a man who was acquitted factor into your punishment ideas? He was found to be not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Your basing your finding of guilt on the media hoopla.
Wow, once again you totally missed my point. Ummm of course he was found not guility. Now, it's "media hoopla" huh. Anyone in their right mind could see that their was enough potential evidence to find him guilty for murder. That fact that you seem to wish to defend all these sickos is amazing to me.
Could you please answer now my question that I asked a while ago in the thread and you never answered..
In the case of someone like the BTK killer, or Manson? Would you be for the death penility for someone like him? Could you please explain to me why you would feel that they have any right to still be alive?
One more question.. If someone brutally murdered a family member of yours and you seen it happen. There was zero doubt then that he did the crime in your mind. Would you be for the death penalty then or not, yes or no?
While your at it, read what the other posters have said about what they witnessed first hand when they were on court. Since you don't seem to want to believe me, read their posts, I think those were quit clear also in how there are cases where these sick freaks get away with a crime with a slap on the wrist. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/24/2008 12:14:27 PM | | The law of the land is that if you lay in wait to kill someone that it is a crime punishable by death................if you don't like the laws of the land then why don't you just leave it..........or better yet, your living in the right place if you do kill someone because more than likely you won't get death. You will get free meals and TV and books. Like I said earlier, my brother was brutally murdered and the killer lay in wait for him, knew he was coming home. So let me ask you........if you know someone lay in wait for your child, mother, father, sister , brother.......how would you feel...........would you forgive him? | |
|
| |
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/24/2008 1:49:33 PM | Kenneth Bianchi is up for parole. You remember the Hill side strangler, he liked to torture his victims until they begged for death.
The death penalty isn't revenge, it's simply cleaning up. I wouldn't allow an aggressive dog to roam free and if it were a killer I'd put it down in the most humane way.
I don't find all human life to be precious, and I certainly don't see any reason what-so-ever to keep a demented killer alive. It simply serves no purpose. They're like a demented dog, but worse. They don't growl.
By definition these monsters are insane, so what. They are sane enough to know exactly how to turn somebodies baby into hamburger so they are sane enough to face their own execution.
I tend to think of it as evolution in action. Elimination of those genes that make them killers. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/24/2008 2:12:24 PM | | Someone who does terrorism or subversion to the nation,a voilent murderer or rapist that has no hope or rehabilitation but most of all some puke that rapes and murders kids.Give them due process and a fair trail but if found guilty they get the needle and its televised so its a warning to those who would consider doing the same crimes.A byproduct of a liberal society is a liberal justice system and that means a slap on the wrist which is why crime is increasing.Criminals SHOULD fear the law and the consequenses of thier actions.Some bleeding heart liberal would say "killing a killer is wrong" yeah well that guy won't be killing anyone else from now on will he? to use the idiotic logic the anti speeders use "don't want a ticket don't speed" then "don't want to forfeit your life don't kill" simple as that. | |
|
| |
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/24/2008 2:23:42 PM |
One more question.. If someone brutally murdered a family member of yours and you seen it happen. There was zero doubt then that he did the crime in your mind. Would you be for the death penalty then or not, yes or no?
In the case of someone like the BTK killer, or Manson? Would you be for the death penility for someone like him? Could you please explain to me why you would feel that they have any right to still be alive?
Uh, I've already said I'm against the death penalty. Period. So even if someone brutally murdered my mother in front of me, I wouldn't be for the death penalty. My ethics are not contextual. Do I think Manson should be executed? No. BTK? No. Anyone? No.
The only reason you know about any so called "evidence" in the OJ trial is what you saw on TV, and reporters said. The evidence the judge was acutally allowed to consider (again, rules in a system you clearly don't understand) entitled OJ to an acquittal. My point is you say capital punishment should happen when there is "clear evidence" however you have no clue about rules of evidence at all. So you're trying to support your position based on an assumption you might as well have pulled out of your A$$. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/24/2008 2:41:33 PM | Captain Girly Girl you are entitled to your opinion and I respect it. I think we need people like you to remind us of those warm emotional feelings of mercy and love.
However you have no right to say someones pulling evidence out of their A$$. We are on the topic of the appropriatness of removing a stone cold killer from this planet and Not debating "if the glove don't fit".
BTK was a monster, keeping him alive for any reason is pointless. Maybe if you were able to experiment on him it would have a point but that would be cruel. It's far more ethical to remove his ability to breathe, than to keep him as a research subject, and there isn't any other reason to keep him alive.
When it's known beyond any possible doubt, that BTK is a monster because of his confessions there isn't any purpose in keeping him confined. He's not going to be rehabilitated and prison shouldn't be a horrible punishment.
Prison should be able to deter or rehabilitate criminals. The death penalty shouldn't be about torture it should be about removing a danger to society. Warehousing vicious killers for the rest of their lives is pointless, simply remove them permanently, and be done with it. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/24/2008 3:30:14 PM | "The atrocious murder of four girls to satisfy his sexual desire leaves no room for leniency," Chief Justice Tokiyasu Fujita said in January 2006 when Miyazaki’s final appeal was thrown out and the death penalty handed down.
=============================================
For starters this chief justice is an idiot , not even fit to sit the majistrates court.
Any judge, or even cop, worth his salt knows that both rape, and murder are crimes to satisfy VIOLENT tendancies , not sexual desires.
Secondly, when it comes to sexual crimes I will remind the whole board that the first major triumph of DNA testing was when it proved , beyond any doubt, that thousands of convicted rapists, rotting un jail, were INNOCENT. Rapists are the first people that the boards of mass hysteria try to throw the book at but they are normally convicted on the flimsiest of evidence and often convicted on pure rumour. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/24/2008 3:42:47 PM |
I'm going to go with never.
I'm one of those people who think that life is sacred, and with the exception of self defence, no matter what you do, no one has the right to take it from you. It seems awfully hpocritical to kill people who kill.
Captain girly girl. The above quote was from one of your very first posts on this thread. It makes no sense when you really think about what your saying. You said if someone kills another person in self defence that it is ok to kill them. So think about it, the fact that a guy like BTK for example, tortures a victim and gets away with his crime for the moment, why does that (in your mind) suddenly then grant him the absolute right to sustain his life when he murdered someone else?
Think about it, IF one of his victims that he was about to torture and murder had been able to fight back enough to kill BTK first and save their own life, according to your original statement, you would say it was OK for them to kill in self defence.
Uh, I've already said I'm against the death penalty. Period. So even if someone brutally murdered my mother in front of me, I wouldn't be for the death penalty. My ethics are not contextual. Do I think Manson should be executed? No. BTK? No. Anyone? No.
So now according to you, it's totally wrong to take the life of BTK, why? Oh I see, because his victims had no chance to fight back in self defence at the time and therefore he suddenly has a right to life.
The only reason you know about any so called "evidence" in the OJ trial is what you saw on TV, and reporters said. The evidence the judge was acutally allowed to consider (again, rules in a system you clearly don't understand) entitled OJ to an acquittal. My point is you say capital punishment should happen when there is "clear evidence" however you have no clue about rules of evidence at all. So you're trying to support your position based on an assumption you might as well have pulled out of your A$$.
Well captain girly girl, since you made the statement that even someone like BTK or Manson has the right to live and should not be put to death. Since you admit in those cases that they are guility with no doubt in your mind, or even a person who would murder your own family member in front of you. The arguement then of a persons "lack" of evidence really is beside the whole point now isn't it? Even when total evidence is clear as you admit in those examples, you still are against the death penalty. You have a right to your opinion, I will only suggest that you really think about what is right, what is justice, and what the rights of the victims are instead of being so set against the killing of the murderers themselves. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/24/2008 5:44:54 PM | Well captain girly girl, since you made the statement that even someone like BTK or Manson has the right to live and should not be put to death. Since you admit in those cases that they are guility with no doubt in your mind,...
Show me where I said that, because I don't believe I ever mentioned my opinion as to the validity of their conviction or guilt.
...or even a person who would murder your own family member in front of you. The arguement then of a persons "lack" of evidence really is beside the whole point now isn't it? To me, absolutely, however YOU seem to be the one who has said when there's DNA and "clear" evidence the guy is guilty you're all for capital punishment- or are you happy for capital punishment on all convictions? If not, then the evidence, is still pretty damn important to your position.
Even when total evidence is clear as you admit in those examples, you still are against the death penalty. Duh. I am opposed to the death penalty. IN ALL circumstances.
You have a right to your opinion, I will only suggest that you really think about what is right, what is justice, and what the rights of the victims are instead of being so set against the killing of the murderers themselves. This is a whole other discussion that I'm not about to start as clearly, you're already lacking a proper understanding of the justice system. But trust me, I have spent many years thinking about this- when you do what I do for a living, it's important. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/24/2008 8:42:01 PM |
You speak logic. Please inform me of the logic where someone
murders and rapes and even eats small children is allowed to live?
Where is the logic to that?
We've been over this. People have the right to life, and the right not to be deprived of it. Full stop. No exceptions. If people have the right to life, then there can be no executions of any kind by the government.
Either people have the right to life, and therefore executions are not allowed, or people don't have the right to life, and therefore executions are allowed. Would you rather live in a society where life is guaranteed, without exception, or a society where life isn't guaranteed (and therefore open to be terminated for whatever the dominant social trends happen to deem as unacceptable)? It's an easy question to answer.
Before someone says mental illness here...I think
serial killers are more times to none mentally insane to a point,
however, they are so insane that most of them evade the authorities
for years before getting caught, therefore showing they KNOW what
they are doing is wrong, otherwise, why would they hide their
crimes? Fry their asses too.
You clearly have no idea about what mental illness is or how it affects people, and even more clearly you have no idea about how the law reacts to mental illness.
Please inform all of us on this thread what serial killers have
been reformed? To take this further, please inform all of us on
this thread how sick pedophile murders who have eaten their
victims have and can be rehabilitated? They can not be
rehabilitated and the seriousness of their crimes screams for
justice to be paid to the families of the victims who
have to live with the knowledge that their little babies were
brutally raped and then eaten. One more person to think about with
these crimes....did you forget justice for the victims themselves?
How should I know? I'm not an expert on serial killers. I'm not a psychiatrist. Furthermore, judging by your comments, I'm pretty sure that you aren't either.
I'm tired of saying this, since you clearly aren't paying attention, but justice is not about the victims. I won't state why victims shouldn't decide the sentence of their attackers - the answer is obvious. Justice, no matter the crime, is about the wider society. At its best, it should be about healing and prevention. At its worst, as you are advocating, it's about revenge and hatred. You don't want justice. You want blood. | |
|
Nona37
|
Joined: 3/31/2008
Msg: 194 | |
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/25/2008 4:18:15 AM | We've been over this. People have the right to life, and
the right not to be deprived of it. Full stop. No exceptions. If
people have the right to life, then there can be no executions of
any kind by the government.
With this logic, then if EVERYONE has the right to life, you are
indeed ignoring the right's of the victims. You are stating
that murderers who are convicted in court and are 100% guilty of
killing someone has the right to life. I understand your stance,
but this shows you are more supportive of the rights of criminals
and you do not support victim's rights, and your logic is TRULY in
my eyes, the reason we have murderers on death row for 20 years as
well as tax paying dollars funding the lives of these animals.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I find it sad that you
cast the rights of victims aside to apease the rights of murderers.
You are also stating that the crime should not fit the severeity
of the crime. Someone kills someone is found guilty in a court of
law? They get to live while their victims were brutally murdered.
Doesnt make sense to me.
You clearly have no idea about what mental illness is or
how it affects people, and even more clearly you have no idea
about how the law reacts to mental illness.
I assure you I do know about mental illness. I also understand that
the "temporary insanity" defense as well as "insanity" defense is
utilized more times to none with the hopes of appealing to a liberal
jury or judge in order to get away with committing murder. If someone
evades the law and hides what they do, this shows that first off...
they were "sane" enough to know how to evade the law...secondly...
due to "hiding" what they were doing in the first place,,this shows
they KNEW what they were doing was wrong. SOmeone truly mentally
insane would not care about such measures, therefore, there are
two sides to this mental illness defense. Let's not forget "The
Devil made me do it " defense. Its hogwash. I have no pity. I
believe in flipping the switch on these types as well.
How should I know? I'm not an expert on serial killers.
I'm not a psychiatrist. Furthermore, judging by your comments, I'm
pretty sure that you aren't either.
I figured you didnt know because there isn't any. I find it odd
that you would advocate "rehabilitation" for sick cold bloodied
killers with no evidence to even support your stance. This makes
your stance not believable at all. YOu expect our society to believe
that Jeffrey Dahmer could have been rehabilitated. I guess we could
have tried, but unfortunately this killer/rapist/canibal was
"shanked" in prison. Im sure you believe that Ted Bundy could
have been converted as well. You have no proof for this statement.
I have all the proof in the world that these people can not be
rehabilitated, it's called "history"...where's your proof?
I'm tired of saying this, since you clearly aren't paying
attention, but justice is not about the victims.
Of course not, this is why our justic system is called the "criminal
justice system", this needs to change. When the criminals of
a nations have more rights than the victims, it shows how truly sick
YOUR logic as well as our judicial system is.
Justice, no matter the crime, is about the wider society.
At its best, it should be about healing and prevention.
WHat you speak of is utter lunacy. Allowing murderers to live
is allowing other murderers to view that they will not suffer
TRUE consequences of killing people. Healing should be about
the victims families NOT the criminals. Prevention is flipping
a switch and frying them or shooting poison in their arm. This
would work as a great deterrent as compared to your suggestions.
I advocate sentences being given out equivalent to the crime. You
advocate a burden on our tax payers within our nation as well as
no justice or healing for the victims families or societies. You do not care about
the victims of these animals nor their families. You strike me as someone who will
advocate for the life of a murderer but yet turn around and support
abortion, it's just a feeling I have.
I'm truly trying to understand your stance, I just wish it made more sense to me
no offense. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/25/2008 5:47:14 AM | Great thread, interesting topic.
My .02:
No life is any more valuable than another. If you take a life in anything other than the direct defense of your own life or the life other innocents - you have forfeited yours. If your mentally ill to the point that you don't understand your actions? The same rule applies. Imprison for life? Why so that maybe you can escape and do it again? Or even worse reproduce? No thank you.
And I agree, those that most staunchly appose the death penalty are usually those who have never been raped, had a loved one murdered, or seen innocents attacked. That tends to change your perspective - a lot.
And to those who say "it's revenge". It is, but it is ALSO justice. And a cleansing. It isn't more expense to put someone to death than it is to keep them in prison for life, it's the whole legal/appeal process that is more expensive. Maybe what is needed is a revamping of the appeals process. At no time should the rights of the convicted supersede the rights of the law abiding citizens.
All of that being said, there are gray areas where the evidence isn't as clear as it might be. But with confirmed DNA evidence? Don't waste another dime. Put them out of our misery.
To all of those who feel that a killer should not be put to death for his/her crime, then maybe you should just donate yourself to the next homicidal maniac that needs a victim? What? Your outraged? You think that your life is too precious? Yet that is what your suggesting the rest of us do. When you suggest that we attempt to keep convicted killers in prison for life, you also suggest that the rest of us volunteer to be the next victim. Think about it. Are you willing to give YOUR life up as the price for a convicted kill to remain alive? Honestly? Don't say it can't happen. It has. Repeatedly.
I think some of you need to re-think your opinions. Go put YOUR life on the line as a cop or a soldier. Spend time in your local hospitals ER seeing the damage criminals do to others. Walk alone at night, unarmed, in the seedier sections of your city until you're mugged or attacked. I am pretty sure you will begin to see.
Peace and Light
Terry | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/25/2008 5:50:17 AM |
To all of those who feel that a killer should not be put to death for his/her crime, then maybe you should just donate yourself to the next homicidal maniac that needs a victim? What? Your outraged? You think that your life is too precious? Yet that is what your suggesting the rest of us do.
Wait a minute, by advocating life imprisonment for people we're saying you want people to volunteer to die?
I think you need to check that logic. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/25/2008 6:57:57 AM | No need to check that logic at all it is sound and backed up by fact and statistic. Convicted murders escape, attack their jailers, and if they get out of the prison (for what ever reason) more often then not (check the recidivism rates) commit more violent crimes. Anyone who advocates "letting them live" is volunteering all of us to be the next victim.
Personally? I can live with the thought of a dead convicted murderer on my conscious - better that than try to live with him/her in my living room.
Terry | |
|
| |
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/25/2008 10:44:35 AM | Just to be sure I made my point clearly....
I believe that by NOT condoning the death penalty you are condemning others to clean up a mess that you yourself did not have the stomach to deal with. By sentencing a known, convicted murder to life you are simply delaying dealing with the issue. And you add the complication that he might escape or eventually obtain parole. Once released this person is AGAIN free to prey upon the law abiding in our society. So how do you justify this? If just one escapes to kill again - how do you sleep at night knowing your protests against the death penalty contributed to the death of an innocent.
Please note I am talking about the truly 100% guilty, DNA evidence. Not just beyond reasonable doubt, but beyond all doubt guilty.
To me it is simple common sense. A dead murderer is very unlikely to kill again. One left alive to think, study, brood, and plan at taxpayers expense? Hmm wonder how that will work out.
Peace and Light
Terry | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/25/2008 12:25:15 PM | I have read most of the posts here, and many make very good points.
I, myself, am not sure whether the death penalty is right or not.
I am saying this as a person who's father was murdered 17 years ago by a gunman at a range of 12 inches from his face. The man also killed a woman and hurt 2 children, and would have kept going if he didn't run out of bullets. (His words, not mine.)
My family was all for the death penalty at the beginning. His lawyer said that the man would plead guilty if we took the death penalty off the table. We did opt for life in prison without possibility of parole because we didn't want to have to deal with the appeals that would come up. The appeals would just keep bringing the hurt up, and it would be a very long time before we could start healing.
My opinions now, I don't really know to be honest. Should the government take a life for a life? I always thought that was God's job, not man's. Or should we let them live the rest of their life in prison paying for the crime they committed.
Every year on my father's birthday, I would send this man a birthday card telling my father how much I missed him. I made sure that the killer was reminded at least once a year, why he was in there. The last year he was alive (by coincidence), I sent him two cards. One was for my father, and the other one was telling the prisoner that I forgave him but that I still believed that he was in the right place to pay for his crime.
So, is the death penalty a right way to deal with killers? Who knows. I believe that it falls completely on the family that is affected. Not the one's that think that they will know what their emotions would be if it happened to them. None of us know how we will deal with a situation until it is right in front of our face and we MUST come to terms with it.
Everyone believes what they believe for a reason. I just hope that none of you will have to make this type of decision personally. | |
|
|
| Page 8 of 13
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 |
|
Home
login 
