Death Penalty

Funny how extra judicial killings are fine and dandy when they dont happen to you, your family, or anyone you know.

 

There is certainly evidence that the death penalty deters. Whilst there are some question marks over the econometric evidence employed, that evidence is problematic on two counts: First, brutality is important. Second, there is also evidence that the death penalty encourages the murderer to become a multiple murderer

 

England? We are talking about here, but thanks for playing.

 

If someone in my family rapes or murders your sister, wife, or mother you would have no argument from me if they were hung, shot, or gassed.

 

Wanting the death penalty for rape, despite its emotive position, isn't rational. We merely get more rapists prepared to murder. And that's the terror of the death penalty: the emotive will always demand the irrational

 

I think used sparingly is self explanatory, carefully to me means , totally guilty of murdering a child , eyewitnesses and so on , if there is even a minute amount of doubt they should not use it .

 

That's true. Jessica Lunsford was 9 years old. She was abducted from her bedroom in the middle of the night, brought to a trailer and repeatedly raped and tortured for days. When he was done, he didn't kill her right away. Instead he made her get into a garbage bag with the pretense that he was going to bring her someplace and let her go. Instead, he threw the bag, with her in it, in a hole and buried her alive.

When he was caught weeks later and showed police where he buried her, they found a dead little girl still clutching her teddy bear and marks on the bag where she struggled to get out. In cases like these which prey on the innocence of a child I not only believe in the death penalty but I also believe that parents should be given crack at pulling the switch that kills the attacker.

I took this death more personal when I first heard of it because she was a lot like me.

Bee

 

Horrific case. I can also name at least ten others that involve the targeting of child. But bloodlust, which led to the depraved murder of a 14 year old black child within 8 days of his conviction [Read OP] isnt the answer.

It took him 4 minutes of electric shock to die.

 

Most likely, with a little air in the plastic bag, Jessica died in the same amount of time but I agree with you on the case of the 14 year old child. If I had the power I would never have let that happen. However, in the case I mentioned, Couey admitted to burying Jessica alive with the intent of killing her so she couldn't identify him so I can't buy your argument.
I will always seek revenge for a child abduction that leads to her murder when the murderer was fully aware of what he was doing no matter what kind of childhood he may have had. I will never change my mind about this.

I would also federally ban barbaric methods of execution like hanging, firing squad, electric shock, gas, etc, and opt instead for lethal injection. One puts you to sleep and the other stops the heart. I'm not allowed to tell you any more about the procedure.

Bee

 

Unfortunately, I have no figures to show right now, but I am sure that in this country, the numbers of murders, specifically child murders have shot up since the death penalty was abolished in this country. There is hardly a day goes by without murder being in the headlines. I must check and see if I can find any figures.

 

Save yourself some time. You'd only have data consistent with showing a spurious relationship!

 

Why? And are you someone who is involved in the process?

Just curious.

 

The death penalty is unnecessary and barbaric. It is cruel and unusual punishment and I liken it to torture.
We cannot say that killing is wrong and then turn around and kill someone. That makes us hypocrites, and just as bad as the accused.

We cannot expect the killing to stop if we don't set the first example.

 

Um have you forgotten to account for such "small" issues as the size of the relitive police force. Expanded populations? Abosloute growth in crime over the past 50 years? Cross checking population density with areas of child murders? etc.

And the federal death penalty has not been abolished.

Sorry, Deterence & Rising Crime Statistics must take all of these into account.

 

Unfortunately friend this still does not change anything, the state is still seeking some form of revenge.

 

Exactly. The State is suppose to assume a higher, abitrary role, rather than channel the collective hate of an enitre society.

That is was happened to Stinny. The Kangaroo Court that convicted him was a channel for racist communal hate for this innocent black child.

Instead of being hung from a tree his brain was melted.

 

No, but I have to be careful what I say or post. Once you become an active student you're no longer a regular person. In other words, even if my neighbor asks me for help changing a bandage I can no longer do it as a neighbor even if I'm off duty. I will always be doing it as a nurse and if
an infection should take place, even if it wasn't my fault, I could be sued.

So, I'm just being careful revealing methods of death even though you can find it on the internet.

With all due respect the rape and torture of a child for days and days for the sole purpose of self gratification is what's really unneccessary, barbaric, and cruel and the death penalty doesn't have to be barbaric like I explained.

Look how many brazen home invasions have been happening lately. Look what happened to Dr. Pettit from Connecticut where invaders broke into his home in broad daylight and took turns raping his wife then strangled her to death. Then they tied his two daughters to their beds and raped them too.
After that they left them tied to their beds and set the house on fire killing them. One was only 11 years old.

I'm not saying all murders deserve the death sentence. Not by a long shot. But there has to be a limit. An unbroken line in the sand that separates the ugly from the good and bad. Child killers are ugly monsters that gave up their right to live when they took that life and I seek nothing but revenge for it.

I stand by what I said but I respect your opinion.

Bee

 

+1

Good post.

"The death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights. It is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state. This cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment is done in the name of justice."

http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty

Glad to live in a civilised country.

 

It's too expensive, does not deter crime, and puts innocent people at risk of being murdered by the state. It should be abolished.

 

And what about the innocent people who are murdered by the state because of some flaw in the criminal justice system? I guess they're just collateral damage?

 

Try again without the usual sarcasm. But first try to understand.

Bee

 

"Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing is wrong?"

I do not believe that the death penalty will do anything to lower crime. What criminal thinks before he commits a crime; will I get the death penalty for this crime? The death penalty can cost the state millions of dollars that could be put to better use. Keeping a person in prison for life is much cheaper.

 

You're obviously confused if you think I'm being sarcastic. My question was totally serious. I am very concerned about the risk of executing an innocent person. Like William Blackstone and Benjamin Franklin, I adhere to the maxim of: Better that ten or one hundred guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

The very existence of the death penalty in criminal cases insures that innocents will die. For this reason alone, I am vehemently opposed to it. So, I ask you, as a proponent of the death penalty, what about the innocents who are wrongfully killed by the state? Are they acceptable collateral damage in your opinion?

 

Innocent people have been killed, and people who are not likely to have committed the crime they were accused of have been put to death. You can never be sure, and if you kill the wrong person, you can't bring them back to life.

 

What does he have to understand? He says (correctly) that innocent people have been killed.
What about them? If you knew an innocent person had been killed, how could you continue to support the death penalty, knowing that it failed?