This is why we have a death penalty

[Voyager]

I also think if you're a Christian and FOR the death penalty, it's hypocritical.

This is something that I've grappled with for a while. While I'm not going to present my political view on this, I morally feel abortion is an abominable action and anyone that excuses it as a 'choice' needs to have their vagina sealed shut with molten hot lava.

Thinking out loud here...the conundrum is how to denounce abortion while remaining supportive of the death penalty!?!? Yes, there's a level of hypocrisy to it. How can someone be supportive of protecting life at one end, but disinterested in protecting it at the other.

However, what a person engages in, between the moment their life began and the moment they took another's is what changes this issue, at least for me.

Every life has a right to a beginning. Not every life has a right to a full end, if that life chooses to take another in cold-blood. So to that end, it's NOT hypocritical. A person makes a sentient decision to take another life in cold blood, he/she should be prepared to face death him/herself.

Big difference: abortion ends an innoncent life and the death penalty ends a guilty one - usually a scumbag.

But if you're a Christian, that's for God to decide who is guilty and who isn't. It's not man's job.

Let me ask you this... who decided the fate of the 300,000 Indonesians who were killed by a tsunami a few years back? Was it God or man? If it was God, then what sin were these people condemned for?

[PDiddy75]

There's a problem with you wanting to get rid of him by the death penalty, the children love him and the girl he abducted still has a bond with him and feels guilty over that. The morning show this morning talked about it, had the stepfather on and some people who talked to the girls, and that the children were upset he was arrested. They will get help, sure, but they would never want him dead, no matter what. That would actually cause more psychological damage to them and maybe even the girl he abducted. Life in prison is the best for this situation, with no chance of parole. He will be abused in prison or have to be isolated, which is hell also.

Thank you for saying that. There are many reasons why I don't support people being given the death penalty; one of them is the family of the convicted. One person commits a crime, and they should pay for it, but that person is going to have family - parents, a partner, children - and those people are innocent. Executing someone punishes their family too. And how many times has someone later been found innocent? Because a person wrongly convicted who is in gaol can be released at least, but someone who has been killed cannot be given back their life. Nothing is black and white; you can say 'only when the person is obviously guilty', but what makes someone obviously guilty?

Ari, that's way outside the scope of the discussion for this particular situation, this guy doesn't have a "family." And the guy is obviously guilty here, so that's that.

Yes, he is - but where do you draw the line? There is no hard line, there is a little bit of black at one end and a little bit of white at the other and a hell of a lot of shades of grey in the middle. Justifying the death penalty where 'there is no doubt' isn't as clear as it seems. A lot of innocent people have been convicted of crimes they didn't commit because a jury was convinced of their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. So what does it take? Witnesses? How many? What if there were no witnesses to the crimes of a multiple murderer? Is evidence enough? How much evidence do you need? What kind of evidence? Do they need to admit to the crime? What if they never do, but everyone is sure that they did it? And what about people who admit to crimes they never did, for all kinds of reasons? The more heinous the crime, the more people need to believe that the perpetrator has been caught and punished, and it's in those cases that the police can convince themselves that they have the right person, to the point of ignoring things, or worse still supressing evidence, that would lead to a jury to dismiss because it would raise doubt. Is it right? Is it wrong? Does it depend on the individual case?

The bottom line is, people are fallible and they are emotional. Convict the wrong person and if you lock them up for life, at least they have a chance to prove their innocence. Kill them and their life is gone forever. You can argue all you want about the deaths of innocent victims, or the loss of their innocence and their lives in cases like the one here, but the bottom line is, I'd rather see a monsterous killer/rapist/pedophile/whatever in gaol for life than have one innocent person executed. That's always going to be the biggest factor for me in why I can't support the death penalty.

What does it take? Proof of DNA and a jury just having common fuckin sense!!!

You don't always have DNA in every single case. A lot of cases also hinge on eyewitnesses, a lot of other evidence. Let's see common sense: DNA and a Jury - OJ Simpson - free. hahahhahhaha. The other side of the coin. Murderers that go free. That's a topic for another day, I guess.

I understand that there isnt DNA in every case, but more times then not...there is. LOL, yes, OJ <b>was</b> free, but it came back to get him anyways! Gotta love karma...

[Jana]

I also think if you're a Christian and FOR the death penalty, it's hypocritical.

This is something that I've grappled with for a while. While I'm not going to present my political view on this, I morally feel abortion is an abominable action and anyone that excuses it as a 'choice' needs to have their vagina sealed shut with molten hot lava.

Thinking out loud here...the conundrum is how to denounce abortion while remaining supportive of the death penalty!?!? Yes, there's a level of hypocrisy to it. How can someone be supportive of protecting life at one end, but disinterested in protecting it at the other.

However, what a person engages in, between the moment their life began and the moment they took another's is what changes this issue, at least for me.

Every life has a right to a beginning. Not every life has a right to a full end, if that life chooses to take another in cold-blood. So to that end, it's NOT hypocritical. A person makes a sentient decision to take another life in cold blood, he/she should be prepared to face death him/herself.

Big difference: abortion ends an innoncent life and the death penalty ends a guilty one - usually a scumbag.

But if you're a Christian, that's for God to decide who is guilty and who isn't. It's not man's job.

Let me ask you this... who decided the fate of the 300,000 Indonesians who were killed by a tsunami a few years back? Was it God or man? If it was God, then what sin were these people condemned for?

That's nature. The other is man deciding to electrocute a person or subject them to a lethal injection b/c they were found guilty of murder and thus killing the murderer.

[Rick]

I also think if you're a Christian and FOR the death penalty, it's hypocritical.

This is something that I've grappled with for a while. While I'm not going to present my political view on this, I morally feel abortion is an abominable action and anyone that excuses it as a 'choice' needs to have their vagina sealed shut with molten hot lava.

Thinking out loud here...the conundrum is how to denounce abortion while remaining supportive of the death penalty!?!? Yes, there's a level of hypocrisy to it. How can someone be supportive of protecting life at one end, but disinterested in protecting it at the other.

However, what a person engages in, between the moment their life began and the moment they took another's is what changes this issue, at least for me.

Every life has a right to a beginning. Not every life has a right to a full end, if that life chooses to take another in cold-blood. So to that end, it's NOT hypocritical. A person makes a sentient decision to take another life in cold blood, he/she should be prepared to face death him/herself.

Big difference: abortion ends an innocent life and the death penalty ends a guilty one - usually a scumbag.

But if you're a Christian, that's for God to decide who is guilty and who isn't. It's not man's job.

Let me ask you this... who decided the fate of the 300,000 Indonesians who were killed by a tsunami a few years back? Was it God or man? If it was God, then what sin were these people condemned for?

That's nature. The other is man deciding to electrocute a person or subject them to a lethal injection b/c they were found guilty of murder and thus killing the murderer.

The only method available in Texas is "Lethal Injection". However, in Oklahoma, you have the option of "Electrocution", "Firing Squad", or "Lethal Injection". Many more choices for the Capital Murderer.

[Michigan Girl]

The only method available in Texas is "Lethal Injection". However, in Oklahoma, you have the option of "Electrocution", "Firing Squad", or "Lethal Injection". Many more choices for the Capital Murderer.

I am LMAO!!!

[PDiddy75]

The only method available in Texas is "Lethal Injection". However, in Oklahoma, you have the option of "Electrocution", "Firing Squad", or "Lethal Injection". Many more choices for the Capital Murderer.

I am LMAO!!!

You and me both!

[Carla777]

The only method available in Texas is "Lethal Injection". However, in Oklahoma, you have the option of "Electrocution", "Firing Squad", or "Lethal Injection". Many more choices for the Capital Murderer.

That's awful

[verslibre]

Chiste! Chiste!

[verslibre]

The only method available in Texas is "Lethal Injection". However, in Oklahoma, you have the option of "Electrocution", "Firing Squad", or "Lethal Injection". Many more choices for the Capital Murderer.

Do any of them ever choose firing squad?

[KDOUBLEU]

The only method available in Texas is "Lethal Injection". However, in Oklahoma, you have the option of "Electrocution", "Firing Squad", or "Lethal Injection". Many more choices for the Capital Murderer.

Do any of them ever choose firing squad?

How about if they just hang him by his nuts for awhile...

[Carla777]

Chiste! Chiste!

Yo sé, pero igual sucede no?

[Rick]

The only method available in Texas is "Lethal Injection". However, in Oklahoma, you have the option of "Electrocution", "Firing Squad", or "Lethal Injection". Many more choices for the Capital Murderer.

Do any of them ever choose firing squad?

After further research, I've found that it's only used if the other two are found unconstitutional, and electrocution is only used if lethal injection is ever held as unconstitutional.

Washington and New Hampshire still have hanging as an option. In New Hampshire, it's only used if lethal injection can't be used for whatever reason. In Washington, the inmate can request a hanging.

[verslibre]

Chiste! Chiste!

Yo sé, pero igual sucede no?

Compré pico de gallo para mis chips!

[PDiddy75]

The only method available in Texas is "Lethal Injection". However, in Oklahoma, you have the option of "Electrocution", "Firing Squad", or "Lethal Injection". Many more choices for the Capital Murderer.

Do any of them ever choose firing squad?

After further research, I've found that it's only used if the other two are found unconstitutional, and electrocution is only used if lethal injection is ever held as unconstitutional.

Washington and New Hampshire still have hanging as an option. In New Hampshire, it's only used if lethal injection can't be used for whatever reason. In Washington, the inmate can request a hanging.

Request a hanging??? Dam! *Good read...thanks Rick!*

[Rick]

The only method available in Texas is "Lethal Injection". However, in Oklahoma, you have the option of "Electrocution", "Firing Squad", or "Lethal Injection". Many more choices for the Capital Murderer.

Do any of them ever choose firing squad?

After further research, I've found that it's only used if the other two are found unconstitutional, and electrocution is only used if lethal injection is ever held as unconstitutional.

Washington and New Hampshire still have hanging as an option. In New Hampshire, it's only used if lethal injection can't be used for whatever reason. In Washington, the inmate can request a hanging.

Request a hanging??? Dam! *Good read...thanks Rick!*

I think it's good to give them a choice. I'm pro-choice on this matter as well.

[Arianddu]

Hmm, here's a question for you; if a prison inmate decides s/he doesn't want to continue living, would you support their right to assisted suicide?

[StoneCold]

The only method available in Texas is "Lethal Injection". However, in Oklahoma, you have the option of "Electrocution", "Firing Squad", or "Lethal Injection". Many more choices for the Capital Murderer.

Do any of them ever choose firing squad?

After further research, I've found that it's only used if the other two are found unconstitutional, and electrocution is only used if lethal injection is ever held as unconstitutional.

Washington and New Hampshire still have hanging as an option. In New Hampshire, it's only used if lethal injection can't be used for whatever reason. In Washington, the inmate can request a hanging.

Request a hanging??? Dam! *Good read...thanks Rick!*

I think it's good to give them a choice. I'm pro-choice on this matter as well.

In Garrido's case I'm pro-DEATH. That scumbag won't be alive in a year. If not by his own hand, I'm sure he'll get some help.

[Rick]

Hmm, here's a question for you; if a prison inmate decides s/he doesn't want to continue living, would you support their right to assisted suicide?

Nope. They need to be made to serve out their sentence to pay for their crime, whatever that sentence is.

[Arianddu]

Hmm, here's a question for you; if a prison inmate decides s/he doesn't want to continue living, would you support their right to assisted suicide?

Nope. They need to be made to serve out their sentence to pay for their crime, whatever that sentence is.

What if they were a murderer?

[Rick]

Hmm, here's a question for you; if a prison inmate decides s/he doesn't want to continue living, would you support their right to assisted suicide?

Nope. They need to be made to serve out their sentence to pay for their crime, whatever that sentence is.

What if they were a murderer?

It doesn't change anything. No matter the sentence, he shouldn't be allowed the privilege of ending his life prematurely. It cheats the loved ones of the deceased the satisfaction of justice being carried out.

[Arianddu]

Hmm, here's a question for you; if a prison inmate decides s/he doesn't want to continue living, would you support their right to assisted suicide?

Nope. They need to be made to serve out their sentence to pay for their crime, whatever that sentence is.

What if they were a murderer?

It doesn't change anything. No matter the sentence, he shouldn't be allowed the privilege of ending his life prematurely. It cheats the loved ones of the deceased the satisfaction of justice being carried out.

But a death sentance doesn't?

[Rick]

Hmm, here's a question for you; if a prison inmate decides s/he doesn't want to continue living, would you support their right to assisted suicide?

Nope. They need to be made to serve out their sentence to pay for their crime, whatever that sentence is.

What if they were a murderer?

It doesn't change anything. No matter the sentence, he shouldn't be allowed the privilege of ending his life prematurely. It cheats the loved ones of the deceased the satisfaction of justice being carried out.

But a death sentence doesn't?

Yes, absolutely, no matter the sentence. If he's sentenced to death, and then kills himself prematurely, then he's cheated the loved ones of the deceased out of the satisfaction of knowing justice was carried out, as it should have been. It used to be and might still be that those that wanted to, were able to witness the execution. I guess it brings finality, seeing the execution carried out. I'd never want to see that though.

[Arianddu]

Hmm, here's a question for you; if a prison inmate decides s/he doesn't want to continue living, would you support their right to assisted suicide?

Nope. They need to be made to serve out their sentence to pay for their crime, whatever that sentence is.

What if they were a murderer?

It doesn't change anything. No matter the sentence, he shouldn't be allowed the privilege of ending his life prematurely. It cheats the loved ones of the deceased the satisfaction of justice being carried out.

But a death sentence doesn't?

Yes, absolutely, no matter the sentence. If he's sentenced to death, and then kills himself prematurely, then he's cheated the loved ones of the deceased out of the satisfaction of knowing justice was carried out, as it should have been. It used to be and might still be that those that wanted to, were able to witness the execution. I guess it brings finality, seeing the execution carried out. I'd never want to see that though.

That's not what I meant. I'm not talking about someone on death row committing suicide, I'm talking about a prisoner, most likely a lifer, deciding that they would prefer not to keep living. It's just something I've wondered about - I've had many people who support the death penalty cite the costs of keeping someone in prison for life as one reason why it should allowed, and just as many cite the relief the families of the victims will have knowing that the purpetrator is dead and can no longer keep killing. So is assisted suicide acceptable in that case? Because which is worse, life in prison or death? When someone wants to die, suddenly life imprisonment is a more appropriate punishment, but otherwise execution is? I'm interested to know how those who support the death penalty feel about it when a prisoner wants to die.

[PDiddy75]

Hmm, here's a question for you; if a prison inmate decides s/he doesn't want to continue living, would you support their right to assisted suicide?

No. I wouldnt give them <b>anything</b> they wanted! They need to serve the time that was given to them, for the crime he/she commited...even the life sentence. True that it cost tax payers money, but so do many other things that are total bullshit.

[Rhiannon]

Because which is worse, life in prison or death? When someone wants to die, suddenly life imprisonment is a more appropriate punishment, but otherwise execution is? I'm interested to know how those who support the death penalty feel about it when a prisoner wants to die.

Ooh yay! I love a good juxtaposition of moral philosophy!



(And I think our prison system should be much more torturous. Like back in the day. No amenities as if this were the Eastern State Hilton and not Penitentiary! Leave them in there to wind out their days in silence and nothingness, break their spirit down to its absolute core, have the inmate's very soul writhing in pain. Have them lose their mind to the point they become catatonic. Then just stop feeding them.

OR, in a perfect world if there must be a death penalty, you get to go the way you gave. Even gruesome cases like the Black Dahlia.

Death is really only an easy way out for these sociopaths. So why give them an easy go of it? I say make them suffer inside their own head.)

[PDiddy75]

Because which is worse, life in prison or death? When someone wants to die, suddenly life imprisonment is a more appropriate punishment, but otherwise execution is? I'm interested to know how those who support the death penalty feel about it when a prisoner wants to die.

Ooh yay! I love a good juxtaposition of moral philosophy!



(And I think our prison system should be much more torturous. Like back in the day. No amenities as if this were the Eastern State Hilton and not Penitentiary! Leave them in there to wind out their days in silence and nothingness, break their spirit down to its absolute core, have the inmate's very soul writhing in pain. Have them lose their mind to the point they become catatonic. Then just stop feeding them.

OR, in a perfect world if there must be a death penalty, you get to go the way you gave. Even gruesome cases like the Black Dahlia.

Death is really only an easy way out for these sociopaths. So why give them an easy go of it? I say make them suffer inside their own head.)

Wow Rhi!! I didnt know you had it in ya!! =]

*Cute picture by the way!*

[BobbyinTN]

I also think if you're a Christian and FOR the death penalty, it's hypocritical.

This is something that I've grappled with for a while. While I'm not going to present my political view on this, I morally feel abortion is an abominable action and anyone that excuses it as a 'choice' needs to have their vagina sealed shut with molten hot lava.

Thinking out loud here...the conundrum is how to denounce abortion while remaining supportive of the death penalty!?!? Yes, there's a level of hypocrisy to it. How can someone be supportive of protecting life at one end, but disinterested in protecting it at the other.

However, what a person engages in, between the moment their life began and the moment they took another's is what changes this issue, at least for me.

Every life has a right to a beginning. Not every life has a right to a full end, if that life chooses to take another in cold-blood. So to that end, it's NOT hypocritical. A person makes a sentient decision to take another life in cold blood, he/she should be prepared to face death him/herself.

Big difference: abortion ends an innoncent life and the death penalty ends a guilty one - usually a scumbag.

But if you're a Christian, that's for God to decide who is guilty and who isn't. It's not man's job.

Let me ask you this... who decided the fate of the 300,000 Indonesians who were killed by a tsunami a few years back? Was it God or man? If it was God, then what sin were these people condemned for?

What? I didn't say anything about it being based on sin, I said if you're a Christian, you don't get to decide who dies, unless you pick and choose the scriptures you want to believe and disgard the rest.

[yak]

There's really no punishment we could apply to even out the damage he's done to this woman and her children. At the mininum, he stole her childhood, teenage years, first kiss, first love, virginity, sense of herself as a person. Beyond that he repeatedly physically and sexually abused her, possibly forced her to prostitute (article I linked above) and impregnated her twice (or more).

She'll never be "free" from his clutches having his two daughters to raise.

He's already crazy so I can't see how prison will be punishment unless he's tortured while he's there. The DP should be applied simply to get rid of him and maybe inhibit others from doing as he did.

Also up for punishment should be those who released him in '88. Judge, parole board etc. This woman should receive a gigantic settlement for what she suffered and will continue to suffer the rest of her life.

Absolutely great and well thought out post!

Children are our greatest resource; they are our future. These kids will be tormented for the rest of their lives; I highly doubt they'll have any affection whatsoever for this monster, especially if more bodies are unearthed.

Why put him in prison at taxpayer expense, and risk the chance that he might be released someday? Once he's dead, this woman will know she won't ever have to be afraid of that again.

I totally agree that the ones who released him in the first place should pay--bigtime. If they had kept him in prison, where he belonged, none of this would have happened.

[Arkansas]

Hmm, here's a question for you; if a prison inmate decides s/he doesn't want to continue living, would you support their right to assisted suicide?

Nope. They need to be made to serve out their sentence to pay for their crime, whatever that sentence is.

What if they were a murderer?

It doesn't change anything. No matter the sentence, he shouldn't be allowed the privilege of ending his life prematurely. It cheats the loved ones of the deceased the satisfaction of justice being carried out.

Ahh, but there's the old debate. Is 'prison' the punishment, or 'removal from our society' the punishment. Prison is just a building to house those that we no longer want among us. So if removal from society is the punishment, then death is the ultimate removal, and it saves the tax payers a bill too.

Is the satisfaction knowing that prison can be a harsh place, or is the satisfaction knowing that someone has been locked-up and put away so that they can harm no one else?



later~

[RossValoryRocks]

Hmm, here's a question for you; if a prison inmate decides s/he doesn't want to continue living, would you support their right to assisted suicide?

Nope. They need to be made to serve out their sentence to pay for their crime, whatever that sentence is.

What if they were a murderer?

It doesn't change anything. No matter the sentence, he shouldn't be allowed the privilege of ending his life prematurely. It cheats the loved ones of the deceased the satisfaction of justice being carried out.

Ahh, but there's the old debate. Is 'prison' the punishment, or 'removal from our society' the punishment. Prison is just a building to house those that we no longer want among us. So if removal from society is the punishment, then death is the ultimate removal, and it saves the tax payers a bill too.

Is the satisfaction knowing that prison can be a harsh place, or is the satisfaction knowing that some has been locked-up and put away so that they can harm no one else?



later~

I vote we use one of the square states for the removal from society...as Mr. Carlin suggested many years ago, just build a big fence around it. Throw them all in there and let survival instincts take over!

Then the only fees we have to pay if the upkeep on the fence!