Justice? Then execute ALL murderers

[Delta4Embassy]

Concern over executing a wrongly-convicted person is legitimate. But of all the executions, how many is that? Very few. But we don't change laws because a few are wrongly convicted.

In a time when violence runs rampant and kids aren't being raised with morals and values, it's up to the state to inflict punishment and set examples. 'If you do this, you go prison.' 'If you do that, you get executed.' With kids assaulting innocent people on the streets as a game (knockout game et al.) clearly the lack of serious punishments in the criminal justice system is having a negative effect. When we don't execute repeat offenders and eventually they kill someone how was not getting rid of them before justice? Some drunk drivers rack up scores of convictions yet are still driving (Florida and Texas most notably have all but non-existant drunk driving laws for how often repeat offenders are still on the roads.) Are we really better off allowing such people to keep on endangering the lawful public instead of simply putting a bullet in the back of their heads?

 

[NoNukes]

Concern over executing a wrongly-convicted person is legitimate. But of all the executions, how many is that? Very few. But we don't change laws because a few are wrongly convicted.

In a time when violence runs rampant and kids aren't being raised with morals and values, it's up to the state to inflict punishment and set examples. 'If you do this, you go prison.' 'If you do that, you get executed.' With kids assaulting innocent people on the streets as a game (knockout game et al.) clearly the lack of serious punishments in the criminal justice system is having a negative effect. When we don't execute repeat offenders and eventually they kill someone how was not getting rid of them before justice? Some drunk drivers rack up scores of convictions yet are still driving (Florida and Texas most notably have all but non-existant drunk driving laws for how often repeat offenders are still on the roads.) Are we really better off allowing such people to keep on endangering the lawful public instead of simply putting a bullet in the back of their heads?

If one person is wrongfully executed, we change laws. Why is their life worth less than the life of a person who was murdered?

 

[George Costanza]

Like to go on record supporting an expansion of the death penalty to include any and all convicted of taking life unlawfully. Be it drunk driving, fights, what have you. If you take another's life, to have real justice you should forfeit your's. Anything else ignores the fact that someone is dead now because of your unlawful actions. It being an accident doesn't enter into it, they're still dead, and you're still alive. Until you're dead too there is no justice.

Let me get this straight - you are advocating executing anyone who is responsible for the death of another even though it is an accident? Either you haven't thought this one through or your are some kind of monster. I suspect it's the former.

A couple of hypos: (1) Your wife is driving to the store. She accidentally hits a child who darts out in front of her car. The child dies as a result of being hit. (2) Your teenage son is taking a rifle out to the back yard to clean it. As he does so, he accidentally drops the rifle onto the patio bricks. He is unaware that the rifle is loaded. A round is fired, which kills a woman who is standing in her living room window, five houses away.

In both of these cases two people are dead (the child and the woman in the house) and two people are still alive (your wife and your teenage son). Until both your wife and your teenage son are dead, there is no justice?

Add to the second hypo that the rifle was your rifle and you were the one that left the round in the chamber that killed the neighbor lady. Should you be executed as well?

I trust you see the absurdity of your statement here.

 

[George Costanza]

When a drunk driver accidentally kills another driver, most states allow prosecution for second degree murder on the theory that even though it was an accident, the defendant was engaging in a highly dangerous course of conduct that easily could result in the death of another. In California, such prosecutions are called Watson murders after the case that first allowed murder charges to be brought for drunk driving caused deaths. Conviction require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had knowledge of the dangerousness of drunk driving and the fact that it could cause the death of another. This knowledge is not automatically imputed - it has to be proven. This is usually done by showing a number of prior, drunk driving convictions. There are other ways to show it, but that is the main one.

There is no death penalty for a Watson murder in California. Second degree murder bears a penalty of 15 to life.

I do not personally agree with the philosophy of Watson murder prosecutions. Murder is an intentional crime. Drunk driving deaths are tragic events, but the are not intentional. They should be severely punished, but not as murders.

 

[HenryBHough]

I suppose if a person were intoxicated against his/her/its will.......

 

[George Costanza]

I suppose if a person were intoxicated against his/her/its will.......

That's the theory behind Watson murder prosecutions - no one forced them to get drunk and they should have known the risk (to others) involved.

I just can't make a murder out of it. What they ought to do is have some huge punishment that far exceeds anything else involved with drunk driving (but not as harsh as a full-out murder sentence) and come up with a new law directed against drunk drivers who kill others while driving drunk, and apply that sentence to that new law.

 

[Unkotare]

Like to go on record supporting an expansion of the death penalty to include any and all convicted of taking life unlawfully. Be it drunk driving, fights, what have you. If you take another's life, to have real justice you should forfeit your's. Anything else ignores the fact that someone is dead now because of your unlawful actions. It being an accident doesn't enter into it, they're still dead, and you're still alive. Until you're dead too there is no justice.

Thanks for another stupid post.

 

[HenryBHough]

Thanks for another stupid post.

Easy to understand why a person with multiple DUI arrests might think such a post stupid. Know anybody like that? Maybe a neighbor or (gasp) relative?

 

[whitehall]

The apparent lack of interest by the Hussein administration to prosecute the jihad US Army major who murdered 13 of his own men is puzzling as well as the cover-up of the insane federal plan to ship weapons to drug cartels in Mexico but many of the states do pretty well in executing the monsters who prey on citizens. Democrat party elder Bill Ayers was one of the leaders of a network who terrorized America for almost a decade. The bomb Ayers and his comrades were making allegedly to murder Ft. Dix Soldiers at a dance exploded prematurely and killed his girlfriend. It makes Ayers guilty of felony murder but he was exonerated of every charge when a friendly judge blamed the FBI for illegal surveillance. In another case during the George Bush Sr. administration the FBI decided to ignore the Constitution and assassinate a woman while she was holding an 18th month old child in her arms. The FBI sniper was indicted by a state court but was quietly dismissed by a federal judge. The same federal clods would kill about 80 men women and children in the most atrocious affront to American Constitution when they used tanks and poison gas in Waco Texas during the Clinton administration.

 

[HenryBHough]

Ah but today He freed a whole bunch of junkies to make up for that.

 

[Jughead]

How does killing this person make the situation better?

Creates a genuine disincentive to murder if you know that you absolutely positively will be executed if convicted. As it is now there's so many gradations of murder that you may only spend a few years in prison in some instances. Or if rich enough none whatsoever... If we executed every murderer regardless of circumstance, as with drunk driving, maybe the Couch kid and the 'chronic repeat offenders' with 80+ DUI arrests would think twice about driving intoxicated. And maybe the ones who crash and murder other people wouldn't.

How does society benefit from keeping dangerous people on the road? An executed murderer is no longer a threat to anyone. Why keep them alive and risk innocent people?

Good point. Capital Punishment should indeed serve as a deterrent to anyone thinking of committing murder.

I personally support Capital Punishment since it does provide a sense of justice to the family members of the murdered victim. It also helps ease the pain somewhat.

We should definitely maintain Capital Punishment, but only for 1st degree premeditated murder, and any killing done while committing a felony. I personally would also like to see convicted child molesters added to the list.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

How does killing this person make the situation better?

Creates a genuine disincentive to murder if you know that you absolutely positively will be executed if convicted. As it is now there's so many gradations of murder that you may only spend a few years in prison in some instances. Or if rich enough none whatsoever... If we executed every murderer regardless of circumstance, as with drunk driving, maybe the Couch kid and the 'chronic repeat offenders' with 80+ DUI arrests would think twice about driving intoxicated. And maybe the ones who crash and murder other people wouldn't.

How does society benefit from keeping dangerous people on the road? An executed murderer is no longer a threat to anyone. Why keep them alive and risk innocent people?

Good point. Capital Punishment should indeed serve as a deterrent to anyone thinking of committing murder.

I personally support Capital Punishment since it does provide a sense of justice to the family members of the murdered victim. It also helps ease the pain somewhat.

We should definitely maintain Capital Punishment, but only for 1st degree premeditated murder, and any killing done while committing a felony. I personally would also like to see convicted child molesters added to the list.

Think if you're found guilty of unlawfully taking another's life you should die yourself. Circumstance dosn't matter to your victim. If some drunk driver kills me I hope my brother or somebody kills them. That's justice.

 

[Unkotare]

Thanks for another stupid post.

Easy to understand why a person with multiple DUI arrests might think such a post stupid. Know anybody like that? Maybe a neighbor or (gasp) relative?

Nope. The OP is still fucking stupid.

 

[theHawk]

Depends on how you define "murder". If your daughter is grabbed, gang raped by 5 men, and you track down those 5 men and kill them, should you be put to death?
Not sure how the GOP thinks. If the girl becomes pregnant, many on the right will say she "liked it" and should have the baby, which of course, is a "gift" from God.

Glad to see you are finally admiting you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

12. One who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death.

16. And whoever kidnaps a man, and he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.

22. And should men quarrel and hit a pregnant woman, and she miscarries but there is no fatality, he shall surely be punished, when the woman's husband makes demands of him, and he shall give [restitution] according to the judges' [orders].
23. But if there is a fatality, you shall give a life for a life,
- Exodus 21

22-23 above is coming up now that some states are considering the unborn 'live people' in matters of drunk driving fatalities.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

When did an "eye for an eye" become justice? If I'm murdered, and then you execute my murderer, how does that help me or my family?

 

[HenryBHough]

When did an "eye for an eye" become justice? If I'm murdered, and then you execute my murderer, how does that help me or my family?

It may help them find closure.

The important benefit, though, is not to you or family. Only to those, and the families of those, said murder is no longer around to add to his/her/its score.

But that wouldn't be important from the liberal perspective.

 

[bianco]

Like to go on record supporting an expansion of the death penalty to include any and all convicted of taking life unlawfully. Be it drunk driving, fights, what have you. If you take another's life, to have real justice you should forfeit your's. Anything else ignores the fact that someone is dead now because of your unlawful actions. It being an accident doesn't enter into it, they're still dead, and you're still alive. Until you're dead too there is no justice.

Yes, this is what happens when The People give the govt the power to kill them in death chambers.
Along come the "execute, execute" [ a sanitised name for premeditated, cold-blooded killing by the state in death chambers] lot clamouring for "justice" by execution-slaughtering human beings for a whole lot more crimes.

 

[bianco]

How does killing this person make the situation better?

Creates a genuine disincentive to murder if you know that you absolutely positively will be executed if convicted. As it is now there's so many gradations of murder that you may only spend a few years in prison in some instances. Or if rich enough none whatsoever... If we executed every murderer regardless of circumstance, as with drunk driving, maybe the Couch kid and the 'chronic repeat offenders' with 80+ DUI arrests would think twice about driving intoxicated. And maybe the ones who crash and murder other people wouldn't.

How does society benefit from keeping dangerous people on the road? An executed murderer is no longer a threat to anyone. Why keep them alive and risk innocent people?

Good point. Capital Punishment should indeed serve as a deterrent to anyone thinking of committing murder.

I personally support Capital Punishment since it does provide a sense of justice to the family members of the murdered victim. It also helps ease the pain somewhat.

We should definitely maintain Capital Punishment, but only for 1st degree premeditated murder, and any killing done while committing a felony. I personally would also like to see convicted child molesters added to the list.

And if the child molester is your 19 yr old daughter with psychological problems...and the child she touched ["sexually assaulted" ] at church group is 13?

 

[Politico]

This thread is full of stupid lol.