Paging anti death penalty libs

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That might be how you'd feel but it doesn't apply to everyone, and especially not those wrongly convicted of which there are far too many.

Most, 90% +, of those wrongly convicted, are convicted of drug crimes. Very few capital cases result in a wrongful conviction.

Further, you oppose death, yet wrongly imprisoning someone for 70 years is easily as much a travesty as putting them to death.

Your logic is flawed.

And yet we've seen names and numbers in this very thread that indicate far more than "very few," and those are just the ones we know about. Regardless, if it only saved one person's life from being executed for a crime they didn't commit I'd still oppose the death penalty.

Incidentally, I also oppose wrongly imprisoning someone for 70 years, however, given the choice between the two, I'd prefer somebody be wrongfully imprisoned than executed given the fact that they could at least be released and possibly get their life back. Death is a little more permanent.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

To execute or not: A question of cost?
States discover it's cheaper to imprison killers for life than to execute them

Dont see how thats possible when it cost 600 bucks a day to hold an illegal alien.
So figure about 11 million bucks for 50 years of incarceration.
I would think they could kill a guy a little cheaper then that. Even with court cost.

Sure, just remove justice from the equation. Then you could just drag a suspect off and hang him. Rope is re-useable. Of course, you would be killing lots of innocent people, but WTH, you'd save a buck or 2. That's what is important. Hell, just get rid of the justice system altogether. Let the vigilantes sort it out.

Yeah...that worked-out, so well, back in the days o'......

.....states' rights!!!!!

 

[there4eyeM]

What about 'right to life'?

Murder is sick.

We don't execute sick people.

Put them on drugs and have them do something constructive. Murderers have surrendered their right to liberty.

However, we could give the family the choice of killing the felon and then serving a sentence for murder, if the desire for vengeance is so strong. Then, at least, it would not be society that was being anti-social.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

The government doesn't decide; the judge and jury do.

But many Republicans are anti-death penalty. I am, for example.

The puke in question is unlikely to live 70 years. Any kid with that much hubris won't last long.

The judge is a government employee.

Try again.

Being a government employee does not mean he IS the government.

You try again. The Judicial System is 1/3 of the government. It isn't the ENTIRE government.

Back peddle away, since nobody said the judicial was the entire government.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I can't understand completely their anger and their rage. And I can certainly understand their desire to act on that. But we, as a society, cannot base our actions on emotions like those. No matter how much we may empathize.

It's funny that you discuss emotion, yet proceed with a bleeding heart argument.

The death penalty protects society - it is the ONLY proven assurance against recidivism. Already the leftists in the forum have acknowledge that there goal is to let this killer, and all killers, back on the street. Ergo the smarmy quip that they oppose the death penalty because it's too permanent. So would life WOPP, IF the intent were to keep them locked up for life, but it clearly is not.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

Sure.

List of exonerated death row inmates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia?

You can't find anything more reliable?

Each individual on the list has a seperate link with corresponding outside links for verification.

But of course you knew that and you're attacking the source since you're unable to debate what I posted.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And yet we've seen names and numbers in this very thread that indicate far more than "very few," and those are just the ones we know about. Regardless, if it only saved one person's life from being executed for a crime they didn't commit I'd still oppose the death penalty.

Even if that means 50 years of being raped and beaten in prison?

Incidentally, I also oppose wrongly imprisoning someone for 70 years, however, given the choice between the two, I'd prefer somebody be wrongfully imprisoned than executed given the fact that they could at least be released and possibly get their life back. Death is a little more permanent.

Nonsense, both are equally permanent. An 80 year old can't get their life back.

Prison is just a means of empowering the state. The prison/industrial complex is the greatest abuse in this nation. Drugs are illegal because we seek to support the prison/industrial complex - millions of lives are sacrificed to ensure this continues.

A system where prison is abolished, where only jails are used for short term incarceration pending trial, appeal and sentence, where the common sense punishments of corporal, restitution and death are all that is on the table, will cut about 90% of what goes through out criminal injustice system. We have a system designed for the benefit of the guards and the legal community, not for the benefit of society.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I can't understand completely their anger and their rage. And I can certainly understand their desire to act on that. But we, as a society, cannot base our actions on emotions like those. No matter how much we may empathize.

Already the leftists in the forum have acknowledge that there goal is to let this killer, and all killers, back on the street.

Yeah.....that's a LIE.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And yet we've seen names and numbers in this very thread that indicate far more than "very few," and those are just the ones we know about. Regardless, if it only saved one person's life from being executed for a crime they didn't commit I'd still oppose the death penalty.

Even if that means 50 years of being raped and beaten in prison?

Incidentally, I also oppose wrongly imprisoning someone for 70 years, however, given the choice between the two, I'd prefer somebody be wrongfully imprisoned than executed given the fact that they could at least be released and possibly get their life back. Death is a little more permanent.

Nonsense, both are equally permanent. An 80 year old can't get their life back.

Prison is just a means of empowering the state. The prison/industrial complex is the greatest abuse in this nation. Drugs are illegal because we seek to support the prison/industrial complex - millions of lives are sacrificed to ensure this continues.

A system where prison is abolished, where only jails are used for short term incarceration pending trial, appeal and sentence, where the common sense punishments of corporal, restitution and death are all that is on the table, will cut about 90% of what goes through out criminal injustice system. We have a system designed for the benefit of the guards and the legal community, not for the benefit of society.

First off, not everyone is beaten or raped in prison. Secondly, we can only make value judgments for ourselves. One person might say he'd rather die than spend a protracted amount of time in prison, another might say the opposite. Regardless, If I'm still alive I can, at least theoretically, put some kind of life together. If I'm dead then I obviously have no shot whatsoever.

Allowing the state to decide who lives and dies is another means of empowering the state, and not one I'm comfortable with.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

List of exonerated death row inmates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia?

You can't find anything more reliable?

Each individual on the list has a seperate link with corresponding outside links for verification.

But of course you knew that and you're attacking the source since you're unable to debate what I posted.

Links to articles and opinion pieces.

What's there to debate? The appeals process works.

Fact is our judicial process isn't perfect and some people are unjustly imprisoned and maybe even put to death. But not enough to warrant abolition. IMO

 

[there4eyeM]

We could be pro-choice and give the convict the opportunity to self-administer a lethal, humane injection.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

And yet we've seen names and numbers in this very thread that indicate far more than "very few," and those are just the ones we know about. Regardless, if it only saved one person's life from being executed for a crime they didn't commit I'd still oppose the death penalty.

Even if that means 50 years of being raped and beaten in prison?

Incidentally, I also oppose wrongly imprisoning someone for 70 years, however, given the choice between the two, I'd prefer somebody be wrongfully imprisoned than executed given the fact that they could at least be released and possibly get their life back. Death is a little more permanent.

Nonsense, both are equally permanent. An 80 year old can't get their life back.

Prison is just a means of empowering the state. The prison/industrial complex is the greatest abuse in this nation. Drugs are illegal because we seek to support the prison/industrial complex - millions of lives are sacrificed to ensure this continues.

A system where prison is abolished, where only jails are used for short term incarceration pending trial, appeal and sentence, where the common sense punishments of corporal, restitution and death are all that is on the table, will cut about 90% of what goes through out criminal injustice system. We have a system designed for the benefit of the guards and the legal community, not for the benefit of society.

First off, not everyone is beaten or raped in prison. Secondly, we can only make value judgments for ourselves. One person might say he'd rather die than spend a protracted amount of time in prison, another might say the opposite. Regardless, If I'm still alive I can, at least theoretically, put some kind of life together. If I'm dead then I obviously have no shot whatsoever.

Allowing the state to decide who lives and dies is another means of empowering the state, and not one I'm comfortable with.

I may be wrong but isn't it up to a jury of your peers that decides punishment?

The state just carries out the sentence, a jury decides what that is.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Even if that means 50 years of being raped and beaten in prison?



Nonsense, both are equally permanent. An 80 year old can't get their life back.

Prison is just a means of empowering the state. The prison/industrial complex is the greatest abuse in this nation. Drugs are illegal because we seek to support the prison/industrial complex - millions of lives are sacrificed to ensure this continues.

A system where prison is abolished, where only jails are used for short term incarceration pending trial, appeal and sentence, where the common sense punishments of corporal, restitution and death are all that is on the table, will cut about 90% of what goes through out criminal injustice system. We have a system designed for the benefit of the guards and the legal community, not for the benefit of society.

First off, not everyone is beaten or raped in prison. Secondly, we can only make value judgments for ourselves. One person might say he'd rather die than spend a protracted amount of time in prison, another might say the opposite. Regardless, If I'm still alive I can, at least theoretically, put some kind of life together. If I'm dead then I obviously have no shot whatsoever.

Allowing the state to decide who lives and dies is another means of empowering the state, and not one I'm comfortable with.

I may be wrong but isn't it up to a jury of your peers that decides punishment?

The state just carries out the sentence, a jury decides what that is.

Juries only decide guilt or innocence.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Juries only decide guilt or innocence.

It depends on the state. In California, a jury must decide for death before a judge can impose the sentence. In Texas, the judge alone makes the determination.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

First off, not everyone is beaten or raped in prison. Secondly, we can only make value judgments for ourselves. One person might say he'd rather die than spend a protracted amount of time in prison, another might say the opposite. Regardless, If I'm still alive I can, at least theoretically, put some kind of life together. If I'm dead then I obviously have no shot whatsoever.

Allowing the state to decide who lives and dies is another means of empowering the state, and not one I'm comfortable with.

I may be wrong but isn't it up to a jury of your peers that decides punishment?

The state just carries out the sentence, a jury decides what that is.

Juries only decide guilt or innocence.

In Texas, we do have jury sentencing in non-capital cases. The accused can elect before trial to have the jury set punishment in the event of a conviction (and we get jury trials for everything). If the accused doesn’t elect jury punishment the judge sets punishment. In almost all felony cases the accused chooses jury punishment.

As for capital punishment cases guilt or innocence is all that's required if the State sought such punishment.

 

[koshergrl]

And yet we've seen names and numbers in this very thread that indicate far more than "very few," and those are just the ones we know about. Regardless, if it only saved one person's life from being executed for a crime they didn't commit I'd still oppose the death penalty.

Even if that means 50 years of being raped and beaten in prison?

Incidentally, I also oppose wrongly imprisoning someone for 70 years, however, given the choice between the two, I'd prefer somebody be wrongfully imprisoned than executed given the fact that they could at least be released and possibly get their life back. Death is a little more permanent.

Nonsense, both are equally permanent. An 80 year old can't get their life back.

Prison is just a means of empowering the state. The prison/industrial complex is the greatest abuse in this nation. Drugs are illegal because we seek to support the prison/industrial complex - millions of lives are sacrificed to ensure this continues.

A system where prison is abolished, where only jails are used for short term incarceration pending trial, appeal and sentence, where the common sense punishments of corporal, restitution and death are all that is on the table, will cut about 90% of what goes through out criminal injustice system. We have a system designed for the benefit of the guards and the legal community, not for the benefit of society.

First off, not everyone is beaten or raped in prison. Secondly, we can only make value judgments for ourselves. One person might say he'd rather die than spend a protracted amount of time in prison, another might say the opposite. Regardless, If I'm still alive I can, at least theoretically, put some kind of life together. If I'm dead then I obviously have no shot whatsoever.

Allowing the state to decide who lives and dies is another means of empowering the state, and not one I'm comfortable with.

Good for you.

Yet I bet you support euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Go figure. Keep those criminals alive....but kill off anyone who's sick or mentally ill.

 

[NoNukes]

Defiant teen gets life sentences in Ohio shooting - WTOP.com

You really think society is better off with paying for this guy to live 70 years or more in prison than just having taken him out back and shot him?

monsters like this killer are the reason we need the death penalty

But some libby needs his feel good moment.

70 years in prison is a just punishment for murder.

No, certainly not. "Just" means equal to/no less than and is the root of the word "justice". It is certainly not "just" to have a person spend 70 years in prison in exchange for taking a life. Life is life, not life in prison. Having said that, there are crimes of passion and other murders with mitigating circumstances. Thus only certain categories of murder due to their nature are punishable by the death penalty. That is as it should be - and "just".

Just is satisfactory to the crime. 70 years of prison is more than just. It is certainly not the result that this guy wants. Executing him ends his misery and makes the state as bad as him.

 

[NoNukes]

Always fun when small government types advocate for giving the government the power to excute its citizens.

You seem to think the government is separate from the people.


Public approval of the death penalty is currently about 70%.

A sad reflection on America and Americans.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Always fun when small government types advocate for giving the government the power to excute its citizens.

You seem to think the government is separate from the people.


Public approval of the death penalty is currently about 70%.

A sad reflection on America and Americans.

....And, it's also inaccurate....

Public Opinion

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Juries only decide guilt or innocence.

It depends on the state. In California, a jury must decide for death before a judge can impose the sentence. In Texas, the judge alone makes the determination.

I stand corrected. Regardless, a jury is a part of the court, which is a part of the state, and it wouldn't make a difference even if they weren't acting on behalf of the state. I don't think the issue of whether somebody lives or dies should be in the hands of anybody or any number of people.