Texas Executes Mexican

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Arguments for the DP are dead-ended. In order to make it cheaper we woul have to abreviate it, causing more innocent people to be sucked in. COuld you imagine the dirty, dirty cops and prosecutors slamming people thru if they knew they would be under less scrutiny?

First, you have to accept these things:
- cops just live to send the wrong people to death for crimes they did not commit
- the accused would not have legal counsel to guard against this "ramming through"
- a jury would not have to be convinced, and the same with a judge, to get a conviction and a death sentence

That's a lot to have to accept in order for your point to be valid.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

I am an opponent of the death penalty.. because I do not think is is a good thing for our government...ANY government to have the right to murder their citizens for ANY reason.

Do you really think that just because you casually slip in the invalid notion that execution following a fair trial and jury verdict is "murder" that it would go unchallenged?

You can call it murder all day long, but an execution that follows a fair, legal trial and conviction on the charge of murder is... not... murder, by any definition, unless you throw out all etymological standards and just capriciously say "it's murder because I don't recognize any actual academic definition of that term and choose to apply it to legal execution on my whim."

I don't agree with the state being able to MURDER, either! But the prosecution of crimes is done by the PEOPLE, through the system that represents them. A JURY made up of those PEOPLE is who decides, and is free to decide against, a person being executed. You make it sound like "the Government" just gets to flippantly say that it wants to murder a given person and that's the power you are guarding against letting the government have.

Well, that does not accurately reflect the reality we're talking about, here.

It's funny but you always seem to have to distort what we're actually talking about in order to score your points.

Quote

Its an easy out for the criminal who needs to be PUNISHED.

Then make the execution painful.
Evidently your objection to capital punishment is not run-of-the-mill: you actually seem to oppose it because it is not cruel ENOUGH! That's pretty novel.

But there are solutions for that; as I said, just make execution something horrifically painful, and it'll be "punishment" enough to satisfy even your bloodlust-- Jeanne, was it?

Quote

IF.. and that is a BIG IF.. they are ever found to NOT have commited the crime.. and are indeed innocent..they can be let out.

Yes, but how hard does anyone keep taking second and third and fourth looks at the convictions of lifers?
They are not the cause célèbre that the capital cases are. No glory for the ACLU or SPLC attorney who gets a lifer released.

Quote

I support life in prison because I believe in PUNISHMENT... and rapists and pedophiles need to be there for life.. since the victims get to relive their attacks for LIFE.

I empathize with rape victims, but I think that knowing that the perpetrator will stare his own premature death down should suffice. (And as I said, I think we should notch-up the suffering. To eleven.) I can't think of much more horrifying than to think that you are about to be strapped down by people who loathe you, in front of more people who loathe you, and forced to have your life end unnaturally.

Quote

Life in prison to me means just that.. you get sentenced and you stay there till you DIE... not let them out for good behavior or ANY other reason. If a little bit of societal payback comes your way.. well too fuckin bad.

Then you should, by rights, be anti-liberal, because traditionally the same people who oppose capital punishment also are the lenient soft-hearts who want to give rapists and murderers "a second chance to become productive members of society."

Do you think it's conservatives who favor letting vicious criminals back out? The gun owners and conservatives who talk constantly about wanting to throw the switch themselves, and about using lethal defense against carjackers and burglars and armed robbers? Surely you don't think it's the conservatives who put "life in prison" on the books and then promptly made that term ABSOLUTELY FUCKING MEANINGLESS as we watch "25 to life" turn into 18 years with time off for good behavior?

And even IF we legislated that "life means LIFE"--no parole, no nothing. Go back to what I said about the non-violent drug offender knifed to death in prison by the hardened repeat-murderer. Who compensates him? Even while in prison for life, they still murder more innocents. That's why I feel death is the only sure thing--the only safe thing--to do with murderers.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

Over 300 years? How about 217 years.

Oops how embarrasing. I must have been using "conservative math" (kind of like "conservative spelling").

Don

Maybe you were under liberal "sniper fire" as you did the math, then.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

In some states, there's AUTOMATIC appeal. How much sense does that make? It's like a tacit admission that the justice system hands down verdicts even as it admits there's a good chance it might be wrong.

It's an excellent practice for exactly that reason.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

> So on one hand, they are all about compassion and being humane,
>and on the other hand, tell us that we should support life in prison
>because it's a great way to make life torture for the condemned.

I don't really care about their feelings either way. Once they murder someone they lose their rights. Assuming a working justice system, either put them in jail for life or execute them, whatever's cheaper.

Yep. That about sums it up for me.

Great point, it's also cheaper to execute innocent people than to jail them forever.

Pssst ...got enough to share?

Yea, lots of logic to go around, help yourself. But remember, don't address the issue.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

All those believed responsible were ultimately arrested. Medellín, after receiving his Miranda warning, gave both a written and taped confession.

Sounds like he got all the motherfuckin' due process a piece of shit needs in a case like this.

Thank you for reproducing the graphic details of this story so that the whiners can see just what the fuck they are defending. Thank you very much for that.

No one is defending the individual in this case, please show where that is stated. We're defending the process, because if the process is flawed, errors will happen. I voted that he got what he deserved, but if the poll asked if it was a positive thing for US society I would have said no.

Step back and don't make everythng a microcosm, look at the macrostructural picture.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

You don't hit a kid to show him that hitting is wrong, I agree.
But that is not the same as executing someone who has killed, and holding him up to those you wish to teach that murder is wrong.

How is it different?

Do you have any evidence suggesting the death penalty works as a deterrent?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

> So on one hand, they are all about compassion and being humane,
>and on the other hand, tell us that we should support life in prison
>because it's a great way to make life torture for the condemned.

I don't really care about their feelings either way. Once they murder someone they lose their rights. Assuming a working justice system, either put them in jail for life or execute them, whatever's cheaper.

Billvon, you are pro-death penalty? Or rather, you are not opposed to it? I am surprised to learn that.

Now, as for "whatever's cheaper," it seems to me that the only reason the death penalty is more expensive is all of the appeals granted to the condemned. In some states, there's AUTOMATIC appeal. How much sense does that make? It's like a tacit admission that the justice system hands down verdicts even as it admits there's a good chance it might be wrong.

If we said, "Verdict's in; it's guilty; come with us" and put a bullet into the killer's skull, capital punishment would be mighty inexpensive.

I guess that in the current situation, capital punishment is more expensive than just warehousing criminals for life because since it takes 20 years to get the criminal finally executed, he's been sucking up that $40k/year cost of being incarcerated! And then you add the court costs of all his appeals. Take away the appeals, and you take away the need to warehouse him for $40k/year, kill him expeditiously and promptly and you saved all that money.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It's like a tacit admission that the justice system hands down verdicts even as it admits there's a good chance it might be wrong.


Just as the SCOTUS states the exclusionary rule is there to dissuade police misconduct. The courts know the system is fucked up.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If we said, "Verdict's in; it's guilty; come with us" and put a bullet into the killer's skull, capital punishment would be mighty inexpensive.


And sweeping, the innocent as well as the guilty would be executed.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I guess that in the current situation, capital punishment is more expensive than just warehousing criminals for life because since it takes 20 years to get the criminal finally executed,...

I think the average is more like 13-14 years.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>Take away the appeals, and you take away the need to warehouse him for $40k/year, kill him expeditiously and promptly and you saved all that money.

Do you proponents ever address wrongful convictions/executions? You can't logically address one side of an issue.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I agree with removing them as a threat.
I cannot support killing for killing.
As a parent I always thought it foolish to teach a child not to hit by hitting them. I think the same principle applies here.

Do you not give children credit for being able to understand the difference?

You don't hit a kid to show him that hitting is wrong, I agree.
But that is not the same as executing someone who has killed, and holding him up to those you wish to teach that murder is wrong.

Execution is not murder. They are both killing, but they are not equivalents. Skydiving and committing suicide off a building are both falling, but are they the same?

Corporal punishment and capital punishment have core similarities; violence used to stop a given behavior.

>>>>>>>>>>>>Execution is not murder.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder

The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

So if it were later discovered that the exected was innocent, would it then be murder? If all the facts were in, the execution would not be committed and unlawful, therefore it would be murder. It's certainly homocide. To weigh whether it is murder or not while people are being killed by the state is ridiculous.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>Skydiving and committing suicide off a building are both falling, but are they the same?


Ridiculous example, these are both voluntary.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Arguments for the DP are dead-ended. In order to make it cheaper we woul have to abreviate it, causing more innocent people to be sucked in. COuld you imagine the dirty, dirty cops and prosecutors slamming people thru if they knew they would be under less scrutiny?

First, you have to accept these things:
- cops just live to send the wrong people to death for crimes they did not commit
- the accused would not have legal counsel to guard against this "ramming through"
- a jury would not have to be convinced, and the same with a judge, to get a conviction and a death sentence

That's a lot to have to accept in order for your point to be valid.

Not true, it isn't that absolute or orchestrated , as conservatives like to believe.

- cops have their own agenda. They take care of their own and will kill/jail anyone to do so.

- legal counsel? You can have counsel and not really have any. Many lawyers are completely incompetent.

- juries operate from emotion in most cases, not to mention they are handcuffed to the judges instrautions, which they may or may not follow. Your sie dangles pictures of dead people to get them fired up and what little logic they entered with are gone. I've seen trials where a picture of the deceased is on the overhead projector for hours if not the entire prosecution's case.

Let's not give juries a lot of credit.

BTW, with hundreds of exonerations / commutations since the 1976 Gregg v Georgia reinstatement of DP how can you argue gross errors have been committed?

In turn, we would have to believe that these exonerations were errant to follow your logic.

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Quote

FYI: Mamma's little boy...

I don't think anyone is arguing that he wasn't a poster child for "he needed killin'". The problem is that in their zeal to do it "their way", the State of Texas has established for all the world to see that:
1) Article VI of the constitution means nothing (as Rasmack has already noted), and
2) The "word" of the United States is worthless (unless perhaps when it comes to threats of violence). Our signature on a Treaty, our solemn promise to do certain things, cannot be trusted, because it can be ignored at will by any of the States.
As a result, any and all countries are (at least morally) free of any obligation to allow our citizens access to US consular services, should they happen to get into legal trouble while abroad.
It never ceases to amaze me, the amount of damage lawyers are willing to do in service of their clients.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

In some states, there's AUTOMATIC appeal. How much sense does that make? It's like a tacit admission that the justice system hands down verdicts even as it admits there's a good chance it might be wrong.

It's an excellent practice for exactly that reason.

Then why not have it for every criminal conviction??

Oh, that's right, because we're supposed to be putting our faith in the justice system, instead of just treating it as though every first conviction must be a flawed one.

Why not just do the murder trials, and then whatever the verdict is, DO THE OPPOSITE?

If they find the guy guilty, rather than do an automatic appeal, just say he's NOT guilty. Likewise if he's acquitted.

And if you want to grant an automatic appeal after a verdict, why don't the PEOPLE (who are represented by the prosecution) get an automatic appeal when a guy who everyone believes did a murder gets acquitted? You know, check whether the acquittal was properly arrived at?

I bet a dollar you won't address that last paragraph in good faith.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

You don't hit a kid to show him that hitting is wrong, I agree.
But that is not the same as executing someone who has killed, and holding him up to those you wish to teach that murder is wrong.

How is it different?

Do you have any evidence suggesting the death penalty works as a deterrent?

You might have "caught" me--if I had ever said that "deterrence" is why I support it.

For me, I support the death penalty as the PUNISHMENT for MURDER. You murdered someone? Fine, you don't get the right to live among us anymore. And we drag you off to your execution, to punish you, and to protect mankind from anything you might do in the future.

And anyway, that murderer is deterred from any future murders.

And as for your point:
You argue that capital punishment doesn't work as a deterrent to murderers. OK, fine. I guess that's proved by the fact that people still do choose to murder. Well, in places where life in prison is the punishment for murder, they also have murders. I guess life in prison is no deterrent to murderers, so why should we have it?

Several years in prison for armed robbery does not stop armed robberies from being committed. The deterrent has failed to work. I guess we shouldn't imprison armed robbers.

Maybe you have to finally admit that "deterrence" is not the principal reason for prison sentences OR executions.


Executions are simply not equivalent to murders, any more than a cop shooting and killing a criminal who is on a rampage is equivalent to murders. Would you say that the cop should simply never use deadly force to stop deadly force? Because that's all execution is, to me.

If you argue that the two are equivalent, I would say, don't jump out of planes with parachutes unless you want to teach kids that committing suicide by jumping off a building is wrong.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I guess that in the current situation, capital punishment is more expensive than just warehousing criminals for life because since it takes 20 years to get the criminal finally executed,...

I think the average is more like 13-14 years.

I can't think of the last person I read of being executed (it's not like there are that many happening rapidly) who hadn't been on death row for at least 20 years.

Quote

Do you proponents ever address wrongful convictions/executions? You can't logically address one side of an issue.

Yes, in fact, I often do.
My belief is that anyone who takes part in any malfeasant act that results in the death sentence of an innocent person (i.e. one who laters is proved to not have committed the murder for which he was convicted) should himself be sentenced to death. And I would impose that death sentence even if the convict never actually got executed and the fraud and error were discovered before that could happen.

Make it really cost a crooked cop or prosecutor or judge. Maybe then we'd get the honesty from the system that you claim to seek.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[Lindsey 0]

Well a man, come on
Six o'clock news
Says somebody been shot
Somebody's been abused
Somebody blew up a building
Somebody stole their car
Somebody got away
Somebody didn't get too far, yeah
They didn't get too far

Grandpappy told my pappy
Back in my day, son
A man had to answer
For the wicked thing he done
Take all the rope in Texas
Find a tall oak tree
Round up all of them bad boys
And hang 'em high in the street
For all the people to see

And justice is the one thing
You should always find
You gotta saddle up your boys
You gotta draw a hard line
When the gun smoke settles
We'll sing a victory tune
And we'll all meet back
At the local saloon

We'll raises up our glasses
Against evil forces
Singing, "Whiskey for my men, beer for my horses!"

We got too many gangsters
Doing dirty deeds
Too much corruption
And crime in the streets
It's time the long arm of the law
Put a few more in the ground
Send them all to their Maker
And he'll set them on down
You can bet, He'll set 'em down

Cause justice is the one thing
You should always find
You gotta saddle up your boys
You gotta draw a hard line
When the gunsmoke settles
We'll sing a victory tune
And we'll all meet back
At the local saloon

And we'll raise up our glasses
Against evil forces
Singing, "Whiskey for my men, beer for my horses!"
Whiskey for my men, beer for my horses!

You know justice is the one thing
You should always find
You gotta saddle up your boys
You gotta draw a hard line
When the gunsmoke settles
We'll sing a victory tune
And we'll all met back
At the local saloon

We'll raise up our glasses
Against evil forces
Singing, "Whiskey for my men, beer for my horses!"
Singing ,"Whiskey for my men, beer for my horses!'

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[birdlike 0]

Um... okay...

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Then why not have it for every criminal conviction??

Every criminal conviction can be appealed. The difference with the death penalty is that in some states there is no option to not appeal.

Quote

Oh, that's right, because we're supposed to be putting our faith in the justice system, instead of just treating it as though every first conviction must be a flawed one.

Our justice system, with all of its flaws, is as good as it is because we do have the ability to appeal decisions. We don't treat convictions as though they must be flawed, we treat them as though they might be flawed, a huge difference.

Quote

Why not just do the murder trials, and then whatever the verdict is, DO THE OPPOSITE?

If they find the guy guilty, rather than do an automatic appeal, just say he's NOT guilty. Likewise if he's acquitted.

Questions like these make it sound as if you have no idea how the appeal process works. Perhaps you should learn about the system before complaining about how it works.

Quote

And if you want to grant an automatic appeal after a verdict, why don't the PEOPLE (who are represented by the prosecution) get an automatic appeal when a guy who everyone believes did a murder gets acquitted? You know, check whether the acquittal was properly arrived at?

Here in America, we have a wonderful document called the Bill Of Rights, which is actually the first ten amendments to the Constitution. The fifth amendment reads (emphasis mine):

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Constitution essentially forbids appeal of acquittals on the basis of double jeopardy.

Quote

I bet a dollar you won't address that last paragraph in good faith.

Please donate $1 to your local American Civil Liberties Union, and post a picture of the receipt.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You don't hit a kid to show him that hitting is wrong, I agree.
But that is not the same as executing someone who has killed, and holding him up to those you wish to teach that murder is wrong.

How is it different?

Do you have any evidence suggesting the death penalty works as a deterrent?

You might have "caught" me--if I had ever said that "deterrence" is why I support it.

You said: "executing someone who has killed, and holding him up to those you wish to teach that murder is wrong." A more concise way of making that statement is that the death penalty is used as a deterrent.

Quote

For me, I support the death penalty as the PUNISHMENT for MURDER. You murdered someone? Fine, you don't get the right to live among us anymore. And we drag you off to your execution, to punish you, and to protect mankind from anything you might do in the future.

Society does not need the death penalty to be protected from convicted murderers. Life in prison protects them just fine.

Quote

And as for your point:
You argue that capital punishment doesn't work as a deterrent to murderers. OK, fine. I guess that's proved by the fact that people still do choose to murder. Well, in places where life in prison is the punishment for murder, they also have murders. I guess life in prison is no deterrent to murderers, so why should we have it?

I didn't make that point; I merely asked you for evidence supporting your assertion. Read my post.

Quote

Executions are simply not equivalent to murders, any more than a cop shooting and killing a criminal who is on a rampage is equivalent to murders. Would you say that the cop should simply never use deadly force to stop deadly force? Because that's all execution is, to me.

Actually, I asked how hitting a child to show hitting is wrong is different from killing a murderer to show murder is wrong.

Quote

If you argue that the two are equivalent, I would say, don't jump out of planes with parachutes unless you want to teach kids that committing suicide by jumping off a building is wrong.

And I would congratulate you on your straw man.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Channman 2]

Jim,

I remember it very well. I also remember the worthless dog being lead by police officers to court as he made multipul attempts to kick Channel 13 camera out of the hands of the camera man.

I remember his laughing and smiles with no remorse for his actions in the torture, rape and murders of those two girls...I remember a father's love for his daughter in tears and unable to speak.

The only thing that I would have preferred would have been quick trails and the immediate exicution of those involved.

The Death Penilty is an necessary tool and should be used far more often. By the way it also reduces Prison over crowding.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I can't think of the last person I read of being executed (it's not like there are that many happening rapidly) who hadn't been on death row for at least 20 years.

I don't suppose you read about the execution discussed in this thread, did you?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Channman 2]

Quote

Quote

You don't hit a kid to show him that hitting is wrong, I agree.
But that is not the same as executing someone who has killed, and holding him up to those you wish to teach that murder is wrong.

How is it different?

Do you have any evidence suggesting the death penalty works as a deterrent?

It works every time its tried...well at least here in Texas. Why have you seen the walking dead?, if so I hear a bullet to the head works.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You don't hit a kid to show him that hitting is wrong, I agree.
But that is not the same as executing someone who has killed, and holding him up to those you wish to teach that murder is wrong.

How is it different?

Do you have any evidence suggesting the death penalty works as a deterrent?

It works every time its tried...well at least here in Texas. Why have you seen the walking dead?, if so I hear a bullet to the head works.

Oh yeah? Please, share the evidence that the death penalty has reduced the incidence of murder.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

Then why not have it for every criminal conviction??

Every criminal conviction can be appealed. The difference with the death penalty is that in some states there is no option to not appeal. (1)

Quote

Quote

Why not just do the murder trials, and then whatever the verdict is, DO THE OPPOSITE?

If they find the guy guilty, rather than do an automatic appeal, just say he's NOT guilty. Likewise if he's acquitted.

Questions like these make it sound as if you have no idea how the appeal process works. Perhaps you should learn about the system before complaining about how it works. (2)

Quote

Quote

And if you want to grant an automatic appeal after a verdict, why don't the PEOPLE (who are represented by the prosecution) get an automatic appeal when a guy who everyone believes did a murder gets acquitted? You know, check whether the acquittal was properly arrived at?

Here in America, we have a wonderful document called the Bill Of Rights, which is actually the first ten amendments to the Constitution. The fifth amendment reads (emphasis mine)
The Constitution essentially forbids appeal of acquittals on the basis of double jeopardy. (3)

Quote

Quote

I bet a dollar you won't address that last paragraph in good faith.

Please donate $1 to your local American Civil Liberties Union, and post a picture of the receipt. (4)

(1) Let's be sure to mention that not every attempt to make an appeal is even granted the right to be heard. You can't just start an appeal just because you don't like the verdict that was returned. I hope you know that. An appeal is required to have a basis at law alleging that there was something improper about the trial!

(2) You failed to catch my sarcasm about how if they are going to give automatic appeals, which I am saying is like emblazoning every verdict with "NOT TO BE TRUSTED" on it, why not just go through the motions of the trial to find out what the jury thinks, and then go with the opposite of the jury finding because that must be the right decision!

(3) I am familiar with the 5th Amendment, of course. And once again you failed to "get" my sarcasm. My point was that if each guilty verdict cannot be trusted and the condemned gets an automatic appeal--not just an appeal if there is an allegation of a legal impropriety, but an automatic appeal--that is a message that the guilty verdict cannot really be trusted. I am cynically saying, "Well, then, maybe we should look a second time at the acquittals--since we're saying the juries are just a bunch of dolts who often arrive at a conviction when a conviction is not called for. Maybe when they acquit, they are wrong, too."

(4) I did not say that I would donate anything to the ACLU; I said I would bet a dollar. Plus, I stipulated in good faith. I don't feel that misunderstanding my sarcasm and thus misaddressing my post constitutes good faith.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

You said: "executing someone who has killed, and holding him up to those you wish to teach that murder is wrong." A more concise way of making that statement is that the death penalty is used as a deterrent.

I said that only in response to the comparison that was drawn between hitting a child to show that hitting is wrong, versus executing a murderer to "show" that murdering is wrong. They are not equivalents, because the goals of each are not the same.

Quote

Society does not need the death penalty to be protected from convicted murderers. Life in prison protects them just fine.

A large part of my disagreement over this is the fact that we don't seem to get good faith from our elected representatives nor from our justice system regarding WHAT EXACTLY "LIFE IN PRISON" EVEN MEANS.

Because we keep seeing many murderers with sentences of "25 to life". What the fuck is that? Either give him life and KEEP HIM IN THERE UNTIL HIS CORPSE IS ROTTING or DON'T CALL IT "LIFE IN PRISON"!

Did you follow the story of that sick, depraved murderess in CA who killed Sharon Tate as part of the Manson family? She's terminally ill, so the fuckin' pansies and bleeding hearts in CA tried to get the prison to release her so she could die in comfort with her family instead of prison.

The story nearly broke my heart. Here is this pitiful, compassion-worthy dying woman and all she wants to do is be near her family when she dies... *sob sob*

Yeah, fuckin' RIGHT! I wouldn't piss down her fuckin' throat if her stomach was on fire. But THAT IS OUR SYSTEM. Society is not protected by "life in prison" because as long as a convicted murderer is alive, there will be a chance that someone will try to get that degenerate piece of shit released from prison. Even if they don't succeed, we still will have to expend resources just to guard against the attempts.

Now, fortunately, they did not release this woman. But what if they had set that precedent? It would mean that "life in prison" means "you spend all your life in prison but then when you are near to death, we'll let you out."

Sorry, but fuck that. If you want to live a nice long life and die near your loved ones, don't commit crimes, so you can stay the fuck out of prison.

Quote

Quote

And as for your point:
You argue that capital punishment doesn't work as a deterrent to murderers. OK, fine. I guess that's proved by the fact that people still do choose to murder. Well, in places where life in prison is the punishment for murder, they also have murders. I guess life in prison is no deterrent to murderers, so why should we have it?

I didn't make that point; I merely asked you for evidence supporting your assertion. Read my post.

Well, now that you see my query, why couldn't you just address it? Must you wait for an engraved invitation? If we recognize that the death penalty does not deter murderers (your argument) as proved by the fact that people still murder, why should we go with the liberals' "life in prison" idea when that too obviously fails to deter murderers? Why is it such a better idea? Unless you're willing to recognize that maybe if they're equivalent, there's no point in arguing that execution fails to deter. The failure of both approaches to deter murderers cancels that argument out.

Quote

Quote

Executions are simply not equivalent to murders, any more than a cop shooting and killing a criminal who is on a rampage is equivalent to murders. Would you say that the cop should simply never use deadly force to stop deadly force? Because that's all execution is, to me.

If you argue that the two are equivalent, I would say, don't jump out of planes with parachutes unless you want to teach kids that committing suicide by jumping off a building is wrong.

Actually, I asked how hitting a child to show hitting is wrong is different from killing a murderer to show murder is wrong.


And I would congratulate you on your straw man.

It's no strawman. I think that it's a logical analogy. You say that it's just as wrong to execute to show that murder is wrong as it is to hit a kid to show that hitting is wrong.

First, let me say that I don't agree with the validity of that latter argument in the first place. The intent behind "hitting" (i.e. spanking) the kid is to drive home the lesson, and condition the kid to change his behavior: you are not to engage in unprovoked hitting of others. K don't agree that a spanking to impart that lesson makes the lesson hypocritical.

Besides which, I do not agree that one action done in response to the same action is just as wrong as the primary instance of that action. i.e. If someone hits you, it is not wrong to hit back just because you're doing the same thing he did to you which you say is wrong. Were that the case, we'd never be able to shoot back at people shooting at us. Or would you argue that that is so?

But I must return to the subject of deterrence: It has never been my belief that the purpose of execution of murderers is to deter others against future murders. As far as I am concerned, the purpose of execution is two-fold: to punish the murderer, and to protect society from someone who has now proven himself to be a danger to it.

Deterrence, IF it occurs, is merely a side benefit. Of course I don't believe in the deterrent effect of expected punishment: because I believe that most criminals commit their crimes because they believe they won't likely be caught. It's a tautology. If they thought they'd be caught and didn't want to be caught, they'd hold off on committing the crime.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You don't hit a kid to show him that hitting is wrong, I agree.
But that is not the same as executing someone who has killed, and holding him up to those you wish to teach that murder is wrong.

How is it different?

Do you have any evidence suggesting the death penalty works as a deterrent?

It works every time its tried...well at least here in Texas. Why have you seen the walking dead?, if so I hear a bullet to the head works.

"We repeat: KILL THE BRAIN, AND YOU KILL THE GHOUL!"

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire