Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How does that change anything? Should we kill him twice, once for each victim?
You need to know Harrier's views on abortion to get why I specifically asked him this question....and how that jives with his opinion that this man shouldn't have been punished.....even with life in prison.
As far as I am concerned, the fact that she was pregnant makes no difference.
You'd think 800 years or so of adversarial justice system should be enough to have people get used to the idea that all defendants are entitled to a vigorous defense, but I guess not.
"cruel and unusual" is such a goddamn hindrance, isn't it? What were they thinking?
Her's a list of 143 people who were on Death Row and subsequently either acquitted, had all charges related to the crime dismissed, or were granted a complete pardon based on evidence of inncocnce.
So - still up for "cleaning out death row in one day"? We should just shrug off the occasional innocent victim as the cost of doing business? Hey, your taxes may go down with as much as, I dunno, 5 cents or so?
We will just have to disagree on this subject and let it go. The information you provided shows inmates that were released since 1973 - acquitted, pardoned, or charges dismissed and thereby considered not guilty and released. The science of criminal investigation and the process of apprehension and the means to prove guilt in today's courtroom has improved dramatically. I stand by my previous statement - I still believe in the death penalty - I do feel it is a waste of effort, money, resources and sympathy to house and maintain prisoners who are absolutely guilty of shockingly heinous crimes - which they have confessed to, described in detail, photographed, or been caught in the act committing when there is absolutely no way in hell they will ever be able to walk among society as a free man or woman again. What is the point? I don't want to pay for them to die in prison for however long it takes when they robbed another human of the right to live themselves. It just does not work that way in my mind. If that is what you consider the "cost of doing business" so be it.
We will just have to disagree on this subject and let it go. The information you provided shows inmates that were released since 1973 - acquitted, pardoned, or charges dismissed and thereby considered not guilty and released.
Yes.
Quote:
The science of criminal investigation and the process of apprehension and the means to prove guilt in today's courtroom has improved dramatically.
I wish I shared your optimism on this count. Can we provide better proof now? We sometimes can. Has the standard for the burden of proof moved upwards with the advent of new technology? Not as far as I can tell. And this is assuming a flawless system that operates conscientiously within the rules. In reality, it isn't, and it doesn't.
Quote:
I stand by my previous statement - I still believe in the death penalty - I do feel it is a waste of effort, money, resources and sympathy to house and maintain prisoners who are absolutely guilty of shockingly heinous crimes - which they have confessed to, described in detail, photographed, or been caught in the act committing when there is absolutely no way in hell they will ever be able to walk among society as a free man or woman again.
What error rate are you willing to accept here?
Quote:
What is the point? I don't want to pay for them to die in prison for however long it takes when they robbed another human of the right to live themselves. It just does not work that way in my mind. If that is what you consider the "cost of doing business" so be it.
That list is of 143 people who would have been killed by the state for no reason at all, had we operated your way. That's the cost. Is that acceptable?
Weird. I seem to recall some sort of pretty important document banning cruel and unusual punishment, but clearly, I must be mistaken.
Come on, when they wrote that they were still hanging people for stealing. Obviously, executions weren't considered cruel and unusual punishment then. I'm against the death penalty to a degree when the case against them isn't 100% sure (based on witness testimony or circumstantial evidence). However, it's the law in the state he committed the crime, he was sentenced to death by a jury of his peers, and there's no question of guilt in this case. He's had twenty-four years to appeal his case, and now he's got to pay the piper. His death will be a lot easier than his victim's. While I would rather the state just do away with the law altogether, I still have no sympathy here.
The argument is that the method chosen can cause someone to be conscious, and suffocating to death slowly.
I'd like to think our nations better then that, but hey we water boarded a guy a couple hundred times so maybe not.
But...Id like to think it. Cant we just shoot the guy or hang him? What was wrong with the old method?
While I'd hate to open up another avenue to continue executions, I do think a firing squad was probably much less painful than lethal injection. It just makes everyone else feel better because it seems so antiseptic. Hanging, on the other hand, is cruel. It doesn't always break their neck immediately so it end up being much worse than this current method.
Correct. It's the cruelty bit - 25 minutes of gasping? That's a helluva botched hanging.
I agree. As I mentioned in my prior post (before I read your reply), I think both hanging and this new method are more cruel than a firing squad. All that aside, I don't really like the death penalty. I just find it hard to gen up any sympathy for a rapist/murderer. I'd think being stabbed to death would actually be worse than the 25 minutes of gasping. I can't think of a worse way to be killed than having a cold sharp knife plunged into my body. The terror has to be intense.
I agree. As I mentioned in my prior post (before I read your reply), I think both hanging and this new method are more cruel than a firing squad. All that aside, I don't really like the death penalty. I just find it hard to gen up any sympathy for a rapist/murderer. I'd think being stabbed to death would actually be worse than the 25 minutes of gasping. I can't think of a worse way to be killed than having a cold sharp knife plunged into my body. The terror has to be intense.
Oh, then we agree. I don't give two hoots about the killer. It's what taking part in killing (in this case, a brutal killing) does to the rest of us that worries me.
I agree. As I mentioned in my prior post (before I read your reply), I think both hanging and this new method are more cruel than a firing squad. All that aside, I don't really like the death penalty. I just find it hard to gen up any sympathy for a rapist/murderer. I'd think being stabbed to death would actually be worse than the 25 minutes of gasping. I can't think of a worse way to be killed than having a cold sharp knife plunged into my body. The terror has to be intense.
Me too.
What he did to her, what he put her through, was much, much worse than any suffering he may have experienced......and then add the fact that she was innocent and did nothing to deserve it....unlike him.
Sorry, I can't even work up one ounce of sympathy for him.
Last edited by Annie53; 01-17-2014 at 05:07 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
