PhillyKev 0 #26 August 3, 2004 QuoteHope he dies painfully. Did you know the victim, or just sadistic? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #27 August 3, 2004 QuoteDid you know the victim, or just sadistic? Did I know the victim? No. Am I sadistic? Sadists are those who derive pleasure from cruelty. Killing a piece of shit scumbag who shot an innocent lady 3 times, ending her life is not cruel. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #28 August 3, 2004 QuoteAgreed. Personally, I don't understand what argument there is for the death penalty other than revenge. It's well proven and not even in dispute that compared to life in prison; it costs more, it is no more of a deterrent, has no effect on the safety of the public, and when applied mistakenly cannot be rectified. But it hasn't been proven that it has to cost more or has to have no deterrent effect. It just does, currently. if you wait 27 years to enact a sentence, of course it isn't going to have much deterrent effect, or save money. In any event, cost is not supposed to be part of the justice equation, is it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #29 August 4, 2004 I can't imagine what sense it would make to execute this person in any way, except to appease some angry people who think that some kind of justice is done by following throught with an execution. To me that seems to be a knee-jerk response by people who are bound and determined to stand behind their death penalty political position. Maybe I'm reading that wrong. However....so he's mildly mentally retarded. That doesn't seem to have a lot of bearing in my mind. People with mild MR aren't usually so impaired that they don't understand the differnce between right and wrong. What bothers me more is that he has some level of dementia. I think that is a much bigger issue. The article doesn't really comment on the severity of this problem, but HELL.... I mean, any execution isn't going to deter that person from committing a crime again, obviously....but JEEZ!!!! I just have a really hard time getting past the idea of executing a person with dementia. I'll have to think more on it to nail down my thoughts on this, but my gut is that it's just wrong.... linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #30 August 4, 2004 QuoteI can't imagine what sense it would make to execute this person in any way, except to appease some angry people Not about appeasing people. It's about following through with what the courts decided. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #31 August 4, 2004 QuoteQuoteI can't imagine what sense it would make to execute this person in any way, except to appease some angry people Not about appeasing people. It's about following through with what the courts decided. Hmmm.....it seems to me that since *most* adults (I hope) are capable of more abstract thought, that we could get past these incredibly concrete notions as solutions to social problems....It's EASY to say we have to do what the court ordered. It's a lot harder to think about whether what we're doing is productive. From my own studies of these types of issues (though it's been some time), I don't think this is productive. Maybe in Texas... linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #32 August 4, 2004 QuoteI don't think this is productive. And you're entitled to your opinion. Fortunately for us that opinion is not law. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #33 August 4, 2004 Quotemaybe in the time of Hammurabi. not according to the laws of the United States. Actually, it is the respective states that make that determination, not the laws of the United States. A minor practical difference, but a huge legal one. Utah can make it it a law that all murders are punishable by death, within the constraints of the US Constitution. About this whole discussion and the Atkins holding, the courts have foudn that a person must have sufficient capacity to understand capital punishment to suffer it. This means if Joe Thug is on death row and gets a shank in his brain a couple of weeks before scheduled execution (he lives but is vegetative) then the state cannot execute him since he cannot understand what is going on. That's my take on it. Also, note the language from Atkins about evolving standard of decency. I adore and abhor that stuff... Different thread, though... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimbarry 0 #34 August 4, 2004 Quotehe's mentally retarded. therefore, he's covered under Atkins (2002). As long as he doesn't request pasta or potatoes for his last meal... rimshot Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #35 August 4, 2004 Seems to me quite a few people on this board would enjoy living under fundamentalist Islamic law (like under the Taleban). They have the same approach to punishment.--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #36 August 4, 2004 QuoteSeems to me quite a few people on this board would enjoy living under fundamentalist Islamic law (like under the Taleban). They have the same approach to punishment. Nah, I likes me some pork, porn and booze. All of that would get me killed in Taliban Afghanistan. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #37 August 4, 2004 Quotein Atkins v. Virginia, 122S.Ct.2242 (June 20, 2002), the supreme court ruled that the execution of any individual with mental retardation violates the 8th amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The court concluded that the execution of persons with mental retardation would not "measurably contribute" to either deterrence or retribution in the criminal justice system. "Construing and applying the eighth amendment in the light of our evolving standards of decency, we therefore conclude that such punishment is excessive and that the Constitution places a substantive restriction on the State's power to take the life of a mentally retarded offender." What a cynical attempt at sleight of hand! By surreptitiously re-framing the debate into one of "deterrence," by sneaking "deterrence" in as the measure by which criminal punishment must be judged, they attempt now to discredit any sentence that doesn't serve that purpose?! That argument is itself invalid, specious, and disingenuous. This passage treats as a given that sentences are justified only when they are successful as deterrents -- and it even attaches "retribution" to the equation, although it is specifically the retribution (i.e. "vengeance") factor that people object to about the death penalty in the first place! This is about as intellectually honest as unilaterally reframing the gun control debate so that only those guns with "sporting purposes" are allowed. Does no one consider that sentences are supposed to be PUNISHMENT to the criminals? That prison should not simply be time spent in a place other than where you would voluntarily go if you were free to choose, but that it should be LOUSY TO BE THERE?! How about the fact that incarceration and/or execution is useful for protecting the whole of society from criminal predation? Have we really lost sight of the purpose of the penal system to the point where if it can't be shown to deter criminals, it shouldn't be used as a sentence? In that case, don't put thieves, rapists or murderers in jail at all, because despite the punishment of prison, they still apparently are undeterred. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #38 August 4, 2004 He commited the crime...He should die."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #39 August 4, 2004 QuoteHe commited the crime...He should die. He commited the crime, he should pay for it, right? So how does this relates to the thread of that woman killing her agressor. If it is proven that it wasn´t self defence, that would be a crime. Should she pay for it? The law is the law, period. On top of the law we MUST apply common sense, if not we will end up with kids being kicked out of school for taking a rubber band gun, etc, etc. What good does it make to the society to have this man executed when he is going to die soon anyway. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #40 August 4, 2004 Quote[the courts have foudn that a person must have sufficient capacity to understand capital punishment to suffer it... Makes little sense. It's not about teaching the criminal a lesson, it's about removing a potential threat to society (the possibility of a repeat offender). I mean, great, he understands why he's being executed - but now he's dead. What a stupid finding. Quote, if not we will end up with kids being kicked out of school for taking a rubber band gun, etc, etc. Funny of course you know this also happens at some of the more wacked out schools (some would say the more 'liberal' schools, but why go there) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #41 August 4, 2004 QuoteHe commited the crime, he should pay for it, right? So how does this relates to the thread of that woman killing her agressor. If it is proven that it wasn´t self defence, that would be a crime. Should she pay for it? There is a BIG difference between the two...He killed in cold blood. The women killed after being ATTACKED and by some reports seriously hurt. She killed while defending herself against a CRIMINAL...This jackass just killed. Now if the woman let the the guy leave and then the next day hunted her attacker down..then it would be the same."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #42 August 4, 2004 QuoteBy surreptitiously re-framing the debate into one of "deterrence," by sneaking "deterrence" in as the measure by which criminal punishment must be judged, they attempt now to discredit any sentence that doesn't serve that purpose?! QuoteDoes no one consider that sentences are supposed to be PUNISHMENT to the criminals? Ok, assuming you truly believe these two statements. Tell, me, why are you punishing people if it's not to deter others? What benefit does that provide? The only answer I can think you could give is enjoyment or satisfaction in punishing them. But I'd like to know what your answer is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #43 August 4, 2004 >He commited the crime...He should die. Agreed, but I don't much care whether he dies via cancer or via lethal injection. If letting him die of cancer is cheaper, fine with me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #44 August 4, 2004 QuoteAgreed, but I don't much care whether he dies via cancer or via lethal injection. If letting him die of cancer is cheaper, fine with me. And if he is scheduled to die next week and the cancer will not take him for two more years?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #45 August 4, 2004 >And if he is scheduled to die next week and the cancer will not take >him for two more years? Whatever's cheaper. At that point it's probably easier to execute him than house him for another two years. But if the execution is one appeal and at least six months away? It might be cheaper to just wait. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #46 August 4, 2004 I was referring to the United States as a whole, not just the federal government. guess I should've been more specific. What I meant was that right now, there's no state or federal law that says "you kill someone else, you die." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #47 August 4, 2004 its pretty much a direct quote from the court's statement about their ruling. I paraphrased a bit for length. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #48 August 5, 2004 I disagree - I think that both the death penalty and life in prison act as a deterrent. And if not, there's always the possibility of rehabilitation through reincarnation. I still wonder about our society when we protest lethal injection as a "cruel and unusual punishment" for (f'rinstance) someone that beat, raped and murdered a 16 year old girl. What was kind and humane about her death? Maybe, just MAYBE, if we show the criminals that we aren't playing footsie on this type of stuff, some of the violent crime would go down....Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ripple 0 #49 August 5, 2004 Quote Am I sadistic? Sadists are those who derive pleasure from cruelty. So why you hope he dies a painful death if it would give you no pleasure either way? Just asking, not trying to cause an argument.Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #50 August 5, 2004 QuoteMaybe, just MAYBE, if we show the criminals that we aren't playing footsie on this type of stuff, some of the violent crime would go down.... Yeah....we should chop off hands of thieves, too. And bring back debtors prisons! How about public floggings? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
