Connecticut Governor Vetoes Bill That Would End Death Penalty

[quentin123]

i'm against it , what's the point of killing a men who is found guilty of killing somebody ? you do the exact same thing ...

[StrongInTheArm]

Originally Posted by ~kev~

What is ridiculous about living next to a murder or rapist?

Where did star trek come into this?

Originally Posted by ~kev~

...
Sure, mistakes happen and innocent people are put to death. But, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The needs of the public to be protected outweigh the needs of a very few people.
...

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

As for what is ridiculous, well ...

Originally Posted by ~kev~

...
The one thing I really, really like to see, is when you ask one of the anti-death penalty people if its ok that a murder lives next to their house. After a murder or rapist are let out of prison, lets move them next door to your house, and your family.

Because if they are not living next to your house, they are living next to someones house. But as long as their not next to your house, its ok, huh.

What do you do with a dog that will not stop biting people? You take it to the vet and have it put to sleep.

Or, if you live in the country, a 22 bullet is cheaper then gasoline.

But either way, that dog will not bite anyone ever again. Murderers and rapist are the scum of the human species. They are animals and should be treated as such.

You are saying, because some people are scared of murderer living next door to them, we should be happy to execute innocent people.

(BTW the murderer that would be living next to you is one that has been tried, convicted, not executed, served his time and finally released probably on probation, usually under some sort of supervision, at least for a time).

[~kev~]

Originally Posted by StrongInTheArm

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

As for what is ridiculous, well ...

ok, and your point is?

The needs of the many, do in fact out weight the needs of the few.

The need of the public to be safe out weighs some killers so called "right to life."

[StrongInTheArm]

Originally Posted by ~kev~

ok, and your point is?

The needs of the many, do in fact out weight the needs of the few.

The need of the public to be safe out weighs some killers so called "right to life."

So you are happy with the State sacrificing you for the good of 'the many'? Yes?

(Well what is your problem with a murderer living next door to you, they have to live somewhere and if the State allows them to live next to you, what is the problem? Are you not helping the many? Or would you prefer a bunch of murderers living rough in you city?)

Of course my point is, they are all fine and noble words until you or your's are on the receiving end. When the State starts sacrificing it's citizens in the name of what it deems 'good', shouldn't we all begin to worry?

[~kev~]

In the world there are 2 types of animals - the prey and the hunter. The problem is, humans are both. We are the prey of larger animals, such as bears, lions, tigers,,, and such. But in groups, we can also hunt those types of animals.

Over the centuries mankind has moved away from his natural environment and setup in towns and cities. This left those people that are predators in our society with nowhere to go and nothing to kill. Unable to pursue their natural killer instincts, they go insane.

These killers - which are really just predators - start killing their own kind.

In the animal world, such behavior can be normal. Its normal for alligators to kill their own kind, bears will kill and eat bear cubs,,,,,,, but for some reason this is not "normal" for humans?

Its normal for humans to kill humans, its just not tolerated in our society.

So, what do you do with predators that follow a basic insist? There is no way to stop them, they will never change, there is no chance for "rehab." These are natural instincts that humans have developed since the dawn of mankind. Those instincts is what has allowed our species to survive through the ice ages, through disease, famines, wars and everything else.

If you are ever in Texas, I invite you to go on a camping trip with me. For nothing else so we can hear the call of the wolves and coyotes at night. Those are the real predators that can still follow their natural instincts. And it will send a chill down the back of your neck. To know that there is something out there that can hunt you, its a feeling you will not forget.

You would not take a wolf out of the wilderness and stick it in someones house. Well, that is about what some of those serial killers are.

So what do you do? Put them in a zoo for the rest of their lives (prison), or put them out of their misery and make society a safer place?

I vote to make society a safer place and line those killers up at the hanging noose. Lethal injection and the electric chair cost money.

[dWhite]

I'm a strong supporter of the death penalty and capital punishments. There are criminals that do harm, goto prison and learn their lesson and get freed and live their lives. Then there are those that commit unforgivable crimes, goto prison, get freed and repeat it all over again.

It's those repeat offenders that don't deserve to live any longer, and I will gladly pay taxes to have them executed rather than paying for them to have shelter and food/water to survive.

[~kev~]

Originally Posted by dWhite

Then there are those that commit unforgivable crimes, goto prison, get freed and repeat it all over again.

Lets not forget the serial killer Ted Bundy that escaped from prison, and then killed more people after he escaped.

He twice escaped from county jails before his final apprehension in February 1978. After more than a decade of vigorous denials, he eventually confessed to over 30 murders, although the actual total of victims remains unknown. Estimates range from 29 to over 100, the general estimate being 35. Typically, Bundy would bludgeon his victims, then strangle them to death. He also engaged in rape and necrophilia. Bundy was executed for his last murder by the state of Florida in 1989.

One thing is for sure, bundy will never escape and will never kill or rape anyone ever again.

Before he was put to death, he escaped twice. After he was put to death, he has yet to escape again. Unless I am missing something here.

It seems to me that the death penalty is 100% effective in stopping serial killers. After they have been arrested and executed of course. While prison is less effective because they can escape or be released.

If the state would had executed ted bundy the first time, peoples lives would have been saved. Especially the 12 year old girl in florida, who was murdered after bundy escaped from a prison in colorado.

So what do you tell that parents of that girl? If the state would have done its job, she might very well be alive today. But oh well, serial killers have a right to live as well huh.

[StrongInTheArm]

Originally Posted by ~kev~

...
I vote to make society a safer place and line those killers up at the hanging noose. Lethal injection and the electric chair cost money.

I vote to make society a safer place too, by locking up your so called predators in goal for life (meaning life btw).

When the State starts killing innocent people in the name of justice isn't it the wolf?

[~kev~]

Originally Posted by StrongInTheArm

I vote to make society a safer place too, by locking up your so called predators in goal for life (meaning life btw).

6 feet of rope is a LOT cheaper then taking care of them for years. I'll even buy the rope.

Originally Posted by StrongInTheArm

When the State starts killing innocent people in the name of justice isn't it the wolf?

Your talking about a small, very small, microscopic percentage of people.

Your more likely to die in a car wreck then being accidentally executed. So lets ban all cars and trucks.

You have a better chance of being struck by lightening then being accidentally executed. So lets outlaw lightening.

You have a better chance of drowning then by being accidentally executed. So lets outlaw water.

[StrongInTheArm]

One innocent person being executed erroneously in the name of justice makes the word hollow. It ain't justice any more.

Can you really not see that. Or are you unwilling to open your heart to the consequences?

[~kev~]

Originally Posted by StrongInTheArm

One innocent person being executed erroneously in the name of justice makes the word hollow. It ain't justice any more.

Can you really not see that. Or are you unwilling to open your heart to the consequences?

I think it was Thomas Jefferson that said "it is better that 100 guilty men go free, then one innocent man go to jail."

And I agree with him.

Even though the legal system here in the USA is flawed, its the best we have. The people that go to prison have been given a trial, by a jury of their peers. If there is ANY doubt to the persons innocence, they have to be found "not guilty".

I personally have faith in our legal system and in the people that sit on the jury.

Mistakes do happen, guilty people go free and innocent people go to prison. But for the overall good of society, convicted killers should be put to death.

Now keep in mind that the average person sits on death row for 12 - 15 years and has numerous appeals. Here in Texas, if someone is sentenced to death, its automatically appealed to a higher court for review. That review board then looks at the case, the evidence and makes a decision.

The convicted person really has at least 3 trials - grand jury, trail by jury, reviewed by a panel of judges - and that is a bare minimum. A lot of cases are appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

[dWhite]

Originally Posted by StrongInTheArm

I vote to make society a safer place too, by locking up your so called predators in goal for life (meaning life btw).

When the State starts killing innocent people in the name of justice isn't it the wolf?

Lethal injection or the electric chair are both cheaper than paying taxes to let the criminal sit in prison for life.

Originally Posted by ~kev~

Now keep in mind that the average person sits on death row for 12 - 15 years and has numerous appeals. Here in Texas, if someone is sentenced to death, its automatically appealed to a higher court for review. That review board then looks at the case, the evidence and makes a decision.

The convicted person really has at least 3 trials - grand jury, trail by jury, reviewed by a panel of judges - and that is a bare minimum. A lot of cases are appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

The same goes for New Hampshire, which within the past few years had it's first capital punishment execution since like the 1960's.

[Brian]

Never supported it, never will. One innocent person is one too many.

[~kev~]

Originally Posted by dWhite

The same goes for New Hampshire, which within the past few years had it's first capital punishment execution since like the 1960's.

You need to call your elected officials and tell them to pick up the pace.

commondreams.org/headlines06/1108-06.htm

Although California leads the nation in prisoners on death row, Texas executes them far more frequently, with 378 put to death since capital punishment was reintroduced in 1982. Virginia is second with 97.

Under Ann Richards (governor of Texas), we were putting prisoners to death weekly, sometimes every night.

I think they should be lined up like a drive through at mcdonalds. Next,,,,, Next,,,,, Next,,,, Next,,,,,, Next,,,,,, - no number needed, next in line please step up.

This sets an example of other people who "think" about killing people. Maybe a few public hangings would help get the murder rate down. "See that, that is what happens when you kill someone in Texas."

[StrongInTheArm]

I quote you your own words, back at you!

Originally Posted by ~kev~

I think it was Thomas Jefferson that said "it is better that 100 guilty men go free, then one innocent man go to jail."

And I agree with him.

...

Mistakes do happen, guilty people go free and innocent people go to prison. But for the overall good of society, convicted killers should be put to death.
...

But it ain't just jail is it. Execution is a little more final.

[Cricket]

Does the death penalty cost less than life in prison without parole?
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/viewa...uestionID=1000

[~kev~]

Originally Posted by Cricket

Does the death penalty cost less than life in prison without parole?

1/2" x 50' White Twisted Nylon Rope - $27.47 at your local Lowes - http://www.lowes.com/lowes/lkn?actio...-8L&lpage=none

And its funny how the page you linked to stopped the "pro" comments in favor of more "cons". Once someone posted that bullets cost less then $1, they stopped posting the "pro" or yes comments. Looks like censorship to me.

[Crunx]

I support the death penalty. Keeping a murderer alive in one of our prisons for the rest of his/her life contributes absolutly nothing to our society. It in no way repays the human life that that person took away. In fact it only further exhausts the rest of the country, who pays for the meals it takes to keep these people alive with our tax dollars.

The death penalty is not the answer for every murder case, but it should not be abolished.


Edit: I read the information cricket posted on the cost of life in prison vs. the cost of the death penalty and now I'm completely confused.

[Crunx]

Originally Posted by Brian

Never supported it, never will. One innocent person is one too many.

If I was charged with murder one and was innocent, I really think I would choose the death penalty for myself rather than spend the next 60 years in prison.

[StrongInTheArm]

Originally Posted by Crunx

If I was charged with murder one and was innocent, I really think I would choose the death penalty for myself rather than spend the next 60 years in prison.

Even if there was a chance that your innocence might be proved at some point. And btw, Crunx illustrates my point, some people give in, even if they are innocent.

Originally Posted by Cricket

Does the death penalty cost less than life in prison without parole?
...

So it's OK for the Scales of Justice to be swayed by penny pinching?

Has someone compared the resources of the prosecution against the defense I wonder? Which side is that loaded against in general?

I guess you could also examine the mental ages, IQ and colour of the general population on death row, I wonder what those figures would show?