We should execute people the old fashioned way (crime, companies, abortions)

[saxondale351]

I agree with the death penalty but not like many neo cons who are emotional about it and want to pull the trigger,lever ect on people with out thought. I am for the DP only when there is no doubt, not beyond a reasonable doubt. Many people have died at the hands of the state only later to be found that most likely they were innocent. Rick Perry and Cameron Todd Willingham is one glaring example of a state all to willing to kill without thought. Neocons are all to blood thirsty and liberals are way to forgiving even when there is no doubt. Both sides on their fare left and right are not only wrong but make for a dangerous nation. Blind nationalism on the far right and out right wanton destruction of the system on the far left. Both crazy and dangerous. I have talked with idiots on the far right who want to take us back to an era where we cut the hands of theifs and stone homosexuals. I believe they called that the dark ages. Liberals would sink the life boat by trying to save the world in a foolish cant we all just get along naive way of living. I will stay in the middle where most of the sane people are.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Glitch

I do not care if I personally witnessed the crime, no government should ever be empowered with the authority to execute one of its own citizens. It has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of guilt or innocence, and absolutely everything to do with trust.

So, even if you "personally witnessed the crime" you don't trust your own testimony enough to let it set someone's sentence? IF the government merits so little trust, WHY should we trust it to decide when to go to war? WHY do you think the lives the government decides should be terminated by war are so meaningless? It has everything to do with guilt or innocence.

[Woundedknee]

all murderers and pedophiles placed in a big room and gassed all others released\parole\fined-- penal system wouldn't stand up to the ricco act

[LordSquidworth]

Originally Posted by Tom Lennox 70

There is already truth in sentencing right now. Most states with the death penalty have extremely strict criteria on conviction and evidence. There was absolutely no doubt that the recently executed killer and rapist was guilty. He was not forced into his confession and never tried to retract his confession. He was guilty, and now he has paid for his crime, and justice has been served.

Would you liberals not wanted the death penalty for Osama bin Laden if he had been found alive? Do y'all not want James Holmes to be executed for what he did in the movie theater?

The state should not have a right to sentence it's citizens to death because the state, no matter the precautions, is susceptible to corruption. Remember what the NDAA said till it was struck down?

I do not believe the state should be allowed to sentence it's citizens to death for any crime because of this.

Somebody rapes a loved one does he deserve to die, yes.

Should the state kill him, no.



PS: Osama bin Laden isn't a US citizen.

Originally Posted by burdell

So, even if you "personally witnessed the crime" you don't trust your own testimony enough to let it set someone's sentence? IF the government merits so little trust, WHY should we trust it to decide when to go to war? WHY do you think the lives the government decides should be terminated by war are so meaningless? It has everything to do with guilt or innocence.

We shouldn't.

Our country hasn't been at war since Korea. These are "conflicts" that they use to circumvent going to war. Less paperwork.

We shouldn't take military action unless it is approved by congress. Conflicts go around that.

[mackinac81]

Originally Posted by Glitch

We should not be executing anyone at all. No government on the face of the planet can be trusted not to abuse the power to execute their own citizens.

Abolish the death penalty and parole, and bring back "Truth In Sentencing."

Exactly. It's not the morality of the issue with me, it's the fact that it's been abused so much throughout the centuries. The power of life and death over citizens is not an issue I trust the government with.

[mlassoff]

I guess some only "love" the part of the Constitution that talks about guns.

[Chimuelojones]

Originally Posted by Tom Lennox 70

There is already truth in sentencing right now. Most states with the death penalty have extremely strict criteria on conviction and evidence. There was absolutely no doubt that the recently executed killer and rapist was guilty. He was not forced into his confession and never tried to retract his confession. He was guilty, and now he has paid for his crime, and justice has been served.

Would you liberals not wanted the death penalty for Osama bin Laden if he had been found alive? Do y'all not want James Holmes to be executed for what he did in the movie theater?

I don't advocate changing the current methods of execution...unless, you personally would become the official executioner and you would conduct all executions by hitting the accused on the head with a baseball bat until the head busted open.

Are you willing to take the job?

[Stoke]

Originally Posted by Bulldogdad

Sorry there are some crimes that are just to heinous not to have the death penalty.

Until you end up on death row awaiting being murdered for a crime you didn't commit.

Very easy to support the death penalty when you are fortunate enough not to be affected.

The death penalty should be abolished because if you support it, you are supporting the murder of innocent people.

This is why the vast majority of first world countries have gotten rid of it.

Don't let emotions get in the way of logic.

[mensaguy]

Originally Posted by Tom Lennox 70

I think the recent controversy over the new execution drug protocol in Ohio's lethal injection is just another example of liberalism backfiring, kinda like "smart growth" forcing development even further out into other counties or states that don't have those laws. Ohio wouldn't have had to "experiment" with this new drug combo if the liberal European countries didn't ban their companies from selling death penalty products to the United States.

This issue has nothing to do with liberalism. While it is true that far more liberals are opposed to killing people, the drug protocols are not the property of liberals. European countries have historically refused to help the USA to kill people by refusing to extradite criminals if the death penalty is likely to be used, so it seems to me to be entirely consistent with decades of European behavior that they refuse to sell drugs to be used in death chambers. If you want to change European behavior, you might have a better chance by posting your complaints in one of the European forums.

Now with all the concerns about suffering of the condemned (never mind that the
executed killer didn't show any mercy to the pregnant woman he raped and
murdered) and the cost of the death penalty, including the cost of the lethal
injection drugs or operating the death chamber (don't know WHY these things cost
so much) maybe we should just execute people the old fashioned way, with a
simple bullet in the head.

With the cost of appeals being so high, it is cheaper to put a criminal away for life than it is to execute him. The method of killing that the government chooses to use is only a very small part of the cost.

That will be simple, cheap, and instant. Many states have a backlog of
executions because of the shortage of execution drugs. I wonder why we can't
produce those chemicals ourselves here in the US I yet its liberal pressure too.
North Carolina has the death penalty but the medical board there refuses to
allow physicians to participate in executions and state law says without a
doctor they can't have a lethal injection. (I'll bet my bottom dollar this same
medical board is not against banning doctors from performing partial birth
abortions).

When states used firing squads or electric chairs, they still had backlogs. The backlogs are largely caused by the lengthy appeals process. Is there some evidence that the backlogs exist because of the drug shortage as opposed to the cases being stalled in appeals? Partial-birth abortions are only a fraction of one percent of abortions, generally done to save the life of the mother, and are statistically insignificant.

So to save money and to assuage the fears of the criminal suffering, I think its best we just use the firing squad, and the best option would be the condemned tied to a chair, the executioner presses the pistol in the back of his head and pulls the trigger. Nothing cruel or unusual about that.

Other than the fact that sometimes innocent people get killed by capital punishment, no matter how you choose to kill people. Sure, killing innocent people is rare, but it DOES happen. The Innocence Project, which only works to exonerate people with DNA evidence, tabulates 312 exonerations it has worked on. That doesn't count those done by other organizations. The Innocence Project - Home

[mensaguy]

Originally Posted by monkeywrenching

better to let 100 guilty people go free than to convict 1 innocent, and there has been too many innocent people convicted of crimes in the past century of the history of the USA.

This is a view that is frequently cited. If we kill those people, there is no chance of correcting the error when new evidence is discovered or new methods are developed (such as DNA). I life sentence is (somewhat) correctable. A death sentence is not.