Under what circumstances should a person be executed?

[Allen Farlow]

Sorry, Jean Luc, but putting prisoners to work will never create enough money to fully pay for their keep. That's wishful thinking.

And if you don't kill some of them, there will be no room in the prisons we now have for the other convicts currently going through the judicial system.

There will be no alternative but for the taxpayers to pay the bills.

We could release those who are in prison for non-violent crimes and make those cells available for violent-offenders, but that is not a permanent solution, only a temporary one.

The reason convicts sit on Death Row for so many years is the appeals process and our sense of justice. We'd have trouble sleeping at night if we didn't allow a convict the ability to have his case looked at again and again and again.

I think we should do away with the appeals process after one, and only one, appeal and use DNA testing as much as possible to affirm guilt. We won't be able to use DNA in all cases as sometimes there is no DNA samples at the crime scene, but it will certainly speed things up for most cases deserving of the death penalty.

[Allen Farlow]

Prisoners will never make enough to fully pay for their keep. That's just wishful thinking.

Sure killing them is too easy. In many cases I'd like to see them tied to a post and slowly cut with razor blades every single day of the rest of their sad life behind bars, but that's not going to free up jail cells for those now going through the judicial process.

Sentencing them to life behind bars is like telling many of them, "Hey, I'm going to sentence you to Homecoming Week! You get to go back and see your buddies again! Have fun!"

Prisons are a revolving door and are absolutely NO threat to certain people. It's a 'been there, done that' kind of thing. They laugh at the courts, they laugh at the guards. They have a good old time, right back at home behind bars. Even a life sentence means little to these types.

A death sentence is a good thing.

[Brave7]

Here is the lastest news about death penalty:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/10/...ion/index.html

Arrested in 2002 and probably executed today (2009).

For 7 years taxpayers money was spent keeping this guy locked up. So for killing 10 people he only gets 7 years. That's not enough suffering for what he did. Once he is executed he will no longer suffer, but the families of the victims will still suffer from their loss.

[Allen Farlow]

Well, that's one way to look at it. But he's paying by being banished from here permanently. And he'll never kill another person here again.

That's another way to look at it.

It's a shame the taxpayers had to pay the keep for such scum for so many years before finally 'offing' him.

[Zap]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Nobody is asking for a perfect system. Nobody. [personal comment removed].

I wasn't asking about a perfect system, complete.
What I meant was perfect with respect to the fact that only the guilty are convicted.
Your criteria, so I thought you'd be able to figure that out. My mistake. Sorry.

And you use the term "reasonable doubt". I think more than that will be required to ensure that only the guilty are convicted.
We have reasonable doubt now and I think you'd agree that conviction rates are far from perfect.
(Oh, sorry... I think you'd agree that conviction rates are far from 100% accurate.)

[ScriptMan]

Upon the basis of what do people have a right to life?

All people have the same rights they are willing to grant to others, no more, no less. When you alter another's rights without just cause you forfeit your own.

Most of the time taxpayers pay expensive prison fees because the death sentenced prisoners are on a waiting list, and it could take a decade before they are eliminated.

According to a state senator here, it cost 2 million to kill them and only 1 million to house them for life. Of course we at at the bottom of that list also since most death row inmates die of old age before they are ever executed. The short -timer has been on the row for 21 years.

I think we either need to put in an expressway like Texas has or abolish the death penalty.

[Cricket]

In this thread I spent some time posting my thoughts.

But to answer the question, these types of crimes . . .

Originally Posted by Cricket

This little girl was 3 years old. Her name was Evelyn. She was raped, sodomized, and murdered in her own home in South Sioux City, Nebraska last month, while her parent slept in another room. Her 5 year old brother is believed to have witnessed at least part of the attack.

[Allen Farlow]

Originally Posted by ScriptMan

According to a state senator here, it cost 2 million to kill them and only 1 million to house them for life. Of course we at at the bottom of that list also since most death row inmates die of old age before they are ever executed. The short -timer has been on the row for 21 years.

I think we either need to put in an expressway like Texas has or abolish the death penalty.

No, we should KEEP the death penalty and EXPAND IT! If more people had the fear of death (at the hands of prison guards) in them, they might think twice and not do some of the horrendous things they do while walking around free.

So it costs $2 mill to kill a convict? Man, I gotta admit, that crock of BS really stinks...

But think about it. Why does it cost that much? Try legal fees and payroll for state prosecutors during the seemingly endless rounds of appeals convicts launch at taxpayer expense...

ONE APPEAL! That's all they should be allowed.

The convict is the one who committed the crime. They are the one who killed or raped or maimed or stole, not the taxpayers. We didn't tell this poor excuse of a human to do what they did. (Especially that freak who attacked that poor little three-year-old. That makes me so angry. I wish I could have a couple hours in a room with that scum. All I'd need is rope, rubbing alcohol and a scalpel.)

So why should these death row convicts get the right to multiple appeals? They shouldn't!

Yet they do. And we all pay for it.

Here's an idea that will save the Texas taxpayers billions of dollars. Just let the convicts case be looked at one last time, then give me a call and I'll personally come down to Huntsville and pull the trigger myself, and smile while I do it. We can stage it to look like that infamous photo of the head shot in Vietnam...

Don't know about anyone else around here, but I'm all for bringing back public hangings in the town square. Tolerance my behind. I think our kids oughta know what will happen if they screw up. They might decide to pull their pants up and start doing the right thing for a change.

[webcrafters]

If it is a conviction of circumstance, a conviction where there were no witnesses to the act, no confessions, no history of criminal activity doing the exact same thing repeatedly, no forensic/dna evidence conclusively proving the act, then the use of the death penalty is questionable at best. While circumstances may prove that there is a lack of another explanation, it does not in my mind remove enough doubt for the removal of possible change later.

On the other hand, as in the case of Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood assassin and the case of John Allen Muhammed the Washington sniper there is indisputable proof and witnesses to remove any possible incorrect conviction, in both cases lives were randomly, meaninglessly ended at their hand, why then should we not repay the favor, though in the case of execution there is justified reason. As a matter of fact the action of execution should return to that of hanging or firing squad, much cheaper, those that have been wronged, lost their child, their spouse, their parents should be the ones that are allowed to pull the gallow switch. That is one Muslim law that I half way agree with, those that perpetrate and act against a family stand at the mercy of the family they assaulted.

[webcrafters]

Originally Posted by Cricket

In this thread I spent some time posting my thoughts.

But to answer the question, these types of crimes . . .

In cases such as these, and this is just my personal opinion, those found to be beyond doubt guilty as described in my post above, special exception executions should be allowed, the inhumane clause should be removed and death should be by castration and bleeding out, or some other sufferable action. Again, I would suggest the family that has suffered the loss be the ones able to suggest the action of execution, in the absence of family then let it be decided upon by those that suffered through having to track down the sick bastard and proving the case to ensure the conviction of the correct person.

[anonymously]

Demands for death penalties and for brutalisation of prisoners the like we saw earlier brutalise us as a society, those who inflict it and those who have to witness it. Socety must act as a civilised society and not as savages baying for pain to be inflicted. Individuals may stoop to that level, but we should not be dragged down to that level by them. Good case law is not made by emotive outburst or sympathy in a particular case.

[webcrafters]

I'm confused, how does the act of execution have anything to do with case law? The case law decides the legality of the act, what evidence is procedurally correct to use for proof of guilt, what is Constitutionally acceptable towards the one charged, what procedures used to attain evidence is not Constitutional.

To me it seems illogical to keep someone alive in a protected environment with food, healthcare, dental care, pretty much the same care that one receives in the military for having committed and atrocious act, and with the help of the ACLU and other rights activist groups it is no longer deemed humane to force labor upon them, or to have chain gangs, so they sit, they get free schooling, they have access to many ammenities that the basic citizen never themselves see. So rather than an incentive to avoid committing atrocious or illegal acts we now have a system that welcomes those that find it easier to be served and protected in confinement than facing the responsibilities and hardships that help determine what a person actually is in freedom.

[mkhan]

Originally Posted by anonymously

Several threads had wandered into this topic so I thought it might be better to debate it as a separate issue.

Thought about a poll but the options are never quite right on a delicate subject like this.

Certainly it is widely held that if a poll was taken in the UK population there would be a majority in favour of bringing the death penalty back for certain crimes but a minority in Parliament.

Hello Anonymously

Capital punishment should be give for Capital Crimes like rape, murder etc. for anything else whatever the law decides..... people who commit rape and murder do not have right to live in this world....

[Moore123]

I may seem cruel but i think we should apply death peanlty to those criminal who commit crimes to children, like rapers etc. I think no punishement will be good for them and i'm not sure that they will regret.

[anonymously]

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

I'm confused, how does the act of execution have anything to do with case law? The case law decides the legality of the act, what evidence is procedurally correct to use for proof of guilt, what is Constitutionally acceptable towards the one charged, what procedures used to attain evidence is not Constitutional.

Case law is about punishment and the saying comes from NOT deciding punishment for a crime because of a particular case.

How would you feel if you were on a jury which convicted someone and then found out they were innocent, after they had been executed? Not my fault feeling, especially if one then had a widow on TV telling how the state took a father and husband. Posthumous pardons are seriously under rated.

John Scott asked earlier about right for life as the basis of this debate. That would not be for me, it would be how much we value human life. The fact that one person takes a life does not give someone else the right to take one if we value human life. the person who rapes and murders may have devalued human life, but we don't have to stoop to their level. Taking two lives seems to me to stem from the maxim often said to me as a child, "Two wrongs don't make a right".

We have to ensure that society is not harmed again by someone who has committed a serious crime and perhaps if we cannot afford, don't want to afford or don't have the space to detain people safely, that says something about the society we have created.

[Allen Farlow]

Originally Posted by anonymously

Demands for death penalties and for brutalisation of prisoners the like we saw earlier brutalise us as a society, those who inflict it and those who have to witness it. Socety must act as a civilised society and not as savages baying for pain to be inflicted. Individuals may stoop to that level, but we should not be dragged down to that level by them. Good case law is not made by emotive outburst or sympathy in a particular case.

Okay, that's all well and good to think that way...until it's one of your own who is taken from you, then let's see how civilized you want to be about it.

I've suffered through the loss of a child, he passed away from a brain hemmorage, but I've experienced the pain of loss nevertheless.

In some way I wish he had been murdered so there would be someone to blame, someone to aim my intense anger towards, but there isn't and I've been forced to accept that it's just the way things go.

Civilized society? That only exists for those who've never personally experienced someone attacking and doing perverted things to their child. Legal justice is not as swift and painful a justice as I would prefer.

In a way I am similar to the criminals in that I couldn't give a rats a&& about being civilized towards those who have caused I and my family harm. Being civilized only leaves yourself wide open to bearing the brunt of such attacks upon your own family. If you think civilized society gives a damn about you and your family, you may be sadly mistaken. They don't, and you are left to suffer the pain and humiliation by yourself.

[Allen Farlow]

Originally Posted by anonymously

How would you feel if you were on a jury which convicted someone and then found out they were innocent, after they had been executed?

Mistakes are going to be made, so face it like adults. But rest in knowing that we got those who were guilty and they'll never be able to hurt another person. That's how I'd feel. I don't think death is anything to be feared. But death is a permanent banishment from our so-called civilized society. (If this truly were a civilized society, crime would not exist.)

Originally Posted by anonymously

Taking two lives seems to me to stem from the maxim often said to me as a child, "Two wrongs don't make a right".

So you would prefer there be no maximum penalty to pay for taking a life? You would prefer that murderers be allowed to live out the rest of their days, even though they didn't allow their victims that same courtesy? Sorry, but I completely disagree. Two wrongs may not make a right, but by God, retribution sure feels good.

And I'd sleep a lot better not having to worry about that person coming back to attack me or my family again. Closure is a must and as long as the scum is still breathing, it wouldn't be enough closure for me.

Originally Posted by anonymously

We have to ensure that society is not harmed again by someone who has committed a serious crime and perhaps if we cannot afford, don't want to afford or don't have the space to detain people safely, that says something about the society we have created.

Name one, even ONE, society on Earth that is crime-free. There isn't any.

If you believe in the Bible and all that, then you also believe that there was a great war in Heaven, and Satan was kicked out and forced to live on Earth without being able to gain a body of flesh and bone. A third of Heaven followed him.

Meaning there is a criminal element loose on Earth, Satan's disciples, that will prey upon God's followers until the Second Coming.

There will always be crime as long as there are humans walking this planet.

I say kill them all and let God sort it out. (Oh, but wouldn't that mean I would stoop to their level? Nope. There's a difference between killing and murdering.)

[Allen Farlow]

If anyone deserves to be killed, I think this wonderful mother sure does:


Mom accused of decapitating baby in court today

Nov. 12, 2009 07:01 AM
Associated Press

SAN ANTONIO - Otty Sanchez got six weeks in a state mental hospital after she was found wandering around a drug store
last year, shopping for an imaginary trip to China.

She got a few hours in an emergency room, then a ride home, in July as a new mom hearing dark voices.

Three-week-old Scott Wesley Buchholz-Sanchez was dead six days later, decapitated and missing fingers and toes, while police say his mother wailed about how the devil made her do it. But as Sanchez readies for her first court appearance Thursday, the question remains: could someone have stopped it?


WARNING: GRAPHIC DETAILS OF THE CRIME ARE MENTIONED IN THIS ARTICLE.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...e=nletter-news

[Cricket]

This is going to sound like an about face from me, but if we are going to hold this woman accountable for the death of this child (which I believe 100% we should) then we dang well better also hold Texas partially responsible. Yeah, I said Texas. This woman reached out for help ONE WEEK prior to killing her child. She was actually taken by ambulance to a local hospital (from a counseling center) reporting depression and hallucinations. Someone made a decision to send her home. Why? I will bet you just about anything that decision was based on money.

Graphic Detail Warning
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...e=nletter-news

A week before the killing, Camara said an ambulance rushed Sanchez to a hospital from a counseling center where she had made an appointment because she was feeling depressed and having hallucinations.

Advocates say resources for indigent women with mental disorders are sparse in Texas, which is ranked 49th in per capita mental health expenditures, according to the National Alliance on Mental Illness.

At the Center for Health Care Services in San Antonio, where Camara said Sanchez was referred for outpatient treatment, about 2,000 more people are served each year than the state pays for, CHCS President Leon Evans said.

State mental hospitals are no less overwhelmed.

"My job here is to get people out, bottom line," said Dr. David Gonzalez, a psychiatrist at the San Antonio State Hospital. "They have hired me to treat people so I can get them out of the hospital. I'm here to keep people out."

This discussion has been good for me because it has made me wonder a lot about how many deaths could be prevented in a lot of cases so that the death penalty discussion would have never been on the table to begin with.

[robjones]

I realize I'm a pedantic putz about the English language and those that butcher it... it goes with being a web editor for a decade. Still I have to wonder what edit staff lets these insanely ambiguous headlines go by. I look at a line that says...

Mom accused of decapitating baby in court today

...and the first thought that comes to my mind is "Really?! Why the hell didn't the bailiff stop her?"