Good News: FL Lawmaker Wants To Bring Firing Squads Back

[bitterlyclingin]

(Florida Lawmaker says its time to put the "punitive" back into capital punishment)


"TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — Saying it's time to stop letting convicted killers "get off that easy," a Florida state lawmaker wants to use firing squads or the electric chair for those on death row.

Rep. Brad Drake filed a bill this week that would end the use of lethal injection in Florida executions. Instead, those with a death sentence would choose between electrocution or a firing squad.

Drake, a Republican, said the idea came to him after having a conversation with a constituent at a Waffle House over the legal battles associated with the Sept. 28 execution of Manuel Valle.

Valle's lawyers tried to stop the execution by arguing that a new lethal drug cocktail would cause him pain and therefore constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Courts, however, rejected that argument and let the execution go forward.

But Drake said the person at the restaurant questioned why death row inmates should even be allowed to die by lethal injection. Drake said he agreed and decided to sponsor the bill that would mandate a switch. The GOP-controlled Florida Legislature will consider the bill during the 2012 session that starts in January.

He said government is spending too much time listening to advocacy groups and instead should put in place a death sentence that forces convicted murderers to contemplate their fates.

Lethal injection just allows a person to die in their sleep while a firing squad or electrocution would force death row inmates to think about their punishment "every morning," Drake said."


Fla. lawmaker wants to bring back firing squads - Yahoo! News

 

[LAfrique]

(Florida Lawmaker says its time to put the "punitive" back into capital punishment)


"TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — Saying it's time to stop letting convicted killers "get off that easy," a Florida state lawmaker wants to use firing squads or the electric chair for those on death row.

Rep. Brad Drake filed a bill this week that would end the use of lethal injection in Florida executions. Instead, those with a death sentence would choose between electrocution or a firing squad.

Drake, a Republican, said the idea came to him after having a conversation with a constituent at a Waffle House over the legal battles associated with the Sept. 28 execution of Manuel Valle.

Valle's lawyers tried to stop the execution by arguing that a new lethal drug cocktail would cause him pain and therefore constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Courts, however, rejected that argument and let the execution go forward.

But Drake said the person at the restaurant questioned why death row inmates should even be allowed to die by lethal injection. Drake said he agreed and decided to sponsor the bill that would mandate a switch. The GOP-controlled Florida Legislature will consider the bill during the 2012 session that starts in January.

He said government is spending too much time listening to advocacy groups and instead should put in place a death sentence that forces convicted murderers to contemplate their fates.

Lethal injection just allows a person to die in their sleep while a firing squad or electrocution would force death row inmates to think about their punishment "every morning," Drake said."


Fla. lawmaker wants to bring back firing squads - Yahoo! News

As long as the alleged criminals are convicted on more than just circumstantial evidence, I have no problem. I have always thought it might help society if murderers know they will be executed in the very same manner they took out their victims.

 

[annesmith]

I was reading some threads in this forum, when I stumbled here. Just a while ago, before I came here, I read an article entitled "Florida bill would bring back death by firing squad". Florida Rep. Brad Drake desires the state's system of capital punishment to ramp it up from lethal cocktail. He has released Florida HB 325, a bill that would bring firing squads or the electric chair back to death row. Convicts would be allowed to choose between either of these replacements for the narcotic cocktail. I believe that capital punishment permanently removes the worst criminals from society, therefore, it proves to be safer for us than long term or permanent incarceration. Why? Because dead criminals cannot commit any further crimes, either within prison or after escaping or after being released from it. But we must also consider that criminals are REAL PEOPLE too who have life and have all other emotions that the rest of us are capable of feeling. Now, do you think pronouncing a death sentence will be a better penalty to taper off heinous crimes?

 

[Katzndogz]

You are in desperate need to meet some of the criminals who have been sentenced to death.

 

[George Costanza]

I am totally opposed to the death penalty in any form whatsoever.

Having said that, I have long argued that lethal injection is kind of pointless - if we are going to do it, let's make it meaningful. Ever wonder if there might be someone out there who wants to commit suicide, but is afraid to do it, so they decide to kill two birds with one stone - take their worst enemy(s) out and then let the state take care of the painless suicide?

I am opposed to the death penalty - but this point is one worth talking about it seems to me.

 

[techieny]

I was reading some threads in this forum, when I stumbled here. Just a while ago, before I came here, I read an article entitled "Florida bill would bring back death by firing squad". Florida Rep. Brad Drake desires the state's system of capital punishment to ramp it up from lethal cocktail. He has released Florida HB 325, a bill that would bring firing squads or the electric chair back to death row. Convicts would be allowed to choose between either of these replacements for the narcotic cocktail. I believe that capital punishment permanently removes the worst criminals from society, therefore, it proves to be safer for us than long term or permanent incarceration. Why? Because dead criminals cannot commit any further crimes, either within prison or after escaping or after being released from it. But we must also consider that criminals are REAL PEOPLE too who have life and have all other emotions that the rest of us are capable of feeling. Now, do you think pronouncing a death sentence will be a better penalty to taper off heinous crimes?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyBcHUe4WeQ]Feelings - Morris Albert - YouTube[/ame]

 

[PoliticalChic]

I was reading some threads in this forum, when I stumbled here. Just a while ago, before I came here, I read an article entitled "Florida bill would bring back death by firing squad". Florida Rep. Brad Drake desires the state's system of capital punishment to ramp it up from lethal cocktail. He has released Florida HB 325, a bill that would bring firing squads or the electric chair back to death row. Convicts would be allowed to choose between either of these replacements for the narcotic cocktail. I believe that capital punishment permanently removes the worst criminals from society, therefore, it proves to be safer for us than long term or permanent incarceration. Why? Because dead criminals cannot commit any further crimes, either within prison or after escaping or after being released from it. But we must also consider that criminals are REAL PEOPLE too who have life and have all other emotions that the rest of us are capable of feeling. Now, do you think pronouncing a death sentence will be a better penalty to taper off heinous crimes?

Yep.

 

[George Costanza]

(Florida Lawmaker says its time to put the "punitive" back into capital punishment)


"TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — Saying it's time to stop letting convicted killers "get off that easy," a Florida state lawmaker wants to use firing squads or the electric chair for those on death row.

Rep. Brad Drake filed a bill this week that would end the use of lethal injection in Florida executions. Instead, those with a death sentence would choose between electrocution or a firing squad.

Drake, a Republican, said the idea came to him after having a conversation with a constituent at a Waffle House over the legal battles associated with the Sept. 28 execution of Manuel Valle.

Valle's lawyers tried to stop the execution by arguing that a new lethal drug cocktail would cause him pain and therefore constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Courts, however, rejected that argument and let the execution go forward.

But Drake said the person at the restaurant questioned why death row inmates should even be allowed to die by lethal injection. Drake said he agreed and decided to sponsor the bill that would mandate a switch. The GOP-controlled Florida Legislature will consider the bill during the 2012 session that starts in January.

He said government is spending too much time listening to advocacy groups and instead should put in place a death sentence that forces convicted murderers to contemplate their fates.

Lethal injection just allows a person to die in their sleep while a firing squad or electrocution would force death row inmates to think about their punishment "every morning," Drake said."


Fla. lawmaker wants to bring back firing squads - Yahoo! News

As long as the alleged criminals are convicted on more than just circumstantial evidence, I have no problem. I have always thought it might help society if murderers know they will be executed in the very same manner they took out their victims.

That would be far too easy on the criminal. How many times does a murderer kill his victim by capturing them, giving them a lengthy trial, convicting them, sentencing them to death and then putting them through a lengthy appeal period, setting an execution date, postponing it a number of times, and then, after the passage of years (sometimes a decade or more), EVERY SINGLE DAY OF WHICH THE VICTIM IS MADE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THEY ARE GOING TO DIE, the deed is finally done.

If you want "death by equal method," take that into account. At least murder victims generally have death thrust upon them relatively quickly and almost always by surprise.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I am totally opposed to the death penalty in any form whatsoever.

Having said that, I have long argued that lethal injection is kind of pointless - if we are going to do it, let's make it meaningful. Ever wonder if there might be someone out there who wants to commit suicide, but is afraid to do it, so they decide to kill two birds with one stone - take their worst enemy(s) out and then let the state take care of the painless suicide?

I am opposed to the death penalty - but this point is one worth talking about it seems to me.

"I am totally opposed to the death penalty in any form whatsoever."
Ya' big pantywaist, Georgie.


"I have long argued that lethal injection is kind of pointless...."
Wait a minute....Georgie starting to see the light!


"so they decide to kill two birds with one stone -"
Birds?....how about dogs?
You may be on to something there, big guy! In my home town
there are folks who find that eating dogs is copesetic...
....if they immigrate to this county, they can find work as
dog catchers!


...and how about dealing with the graffiti problem...we could
make it legal to paint graffiti on illegally parked cars?

You've given me a whole new hobby, Georgie!!!

 

[toxicmedia]

(Florida Lawmaker says its time to put the "punitive" back into capital punishment)


"TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — Saying it's time to stop letting convicted killers "get off that easy," a Florida state lawmaker wants to use firing squads or the electric chair for those on death row.

Rep. Brad Drake filed a bill this week that would end the use of lethal injection in Florida executions. Instead, those with a death sentence would choose between electrocution or a firing squad.

Drake, a Republican, said the idea came to him after having a conversation with a constituent at a Waffle House over the legal battles associated with the Sept. 28 execution of Manuel Valle.

Valle's lawyers tried to stop the execution by arguing that a new lethal drug cocktail would cause him pain and therefore constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Courts, however, rejected that argument and let the execution go forward.

But Drake said the person at the restaurant questioned why death row inmates should even be allowed to die by lethal injection. Drake said he agreed and decided to sponsor the bill that would mandate a switch. The GOP-controlled Florida Legislature will consider the bill during the 2012 session that starts in January.

He said government is spending too much time listening to advocacy groups and instead should put in place a death sentence that forces convicted murderers to contemplate their fates.

Lethal injection just allows a person to die in their sleep while a firing squad or electrocution would force death row inmates to think about their punishment "every morning," Drake said."


Fla. lawmaker wants to bring back firing squads - Yahoo! News

All the people I know....who think it would be fun to shot someone else...even a convicted criminal....have never shot someone.

We as a society are no better than criminals when we hand out irreversable sentences.

Which draws a philosophical dilemna I've gone back and forth on....

......which is worse.......an innocent man gets executed, or a guilty man goes free?

 

[PoliticalChic]

(Florida Lawmaker says its time to put the "punitive" back into capital punishment)


"TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — Saying it's time to stop letting convicted killers "get off that easy," a Florida state lawmaker wants to use firing squads or the electric chair for those on death row.

Rep. Brad Drake filed a bill this week that would end the use of lethal injection in Florida executions. Instead, those with a death sentence would choose between electrocution or a firing squad.

Drake, a Republican, said the idea came to him after having a conversation with a constituent at a Waffle House over the legal battles associated with the Sept. 28 execution of Manuel Valle.

Valle's lawyers tried to stop the execution by arguing that a new lethal drug cocktail would cause him pain and therefore constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Courts, however, rejected that argument and let the execution go forward.

But Drake said the person at the restaurant questioned why death row inmates should even be allowed to die by lethal injection. Drake said he agreed and decided to sponsor the bill that would mandate a switch. The GOP-controlled Florida Legislature will consider the bill during the 2012 session that starts in January.

He said government is spending too much time listening to advocacy groups and instead should put in place a death sentence that forces convicted murderers to contemplate their fates.

Lethal injection just allows a person to die in their sleep while a firing squad or electrocution would force death row inmates to think about their punishment "every morning," Drake said."


Fla. lawmaker wants to bring back firing squads - Yahoo! News

All the people I know....who think it would be fun to shot someone else...even a convicted criminal....have never shot someone.

We as a society are no better than criminals when we hand out irreversable sentences.

Which draws a philosophical dilemna I've gone back and forth on....

......which is worse.......an innocent man gets executed, or a guilty man goes free?

Not the case at all.
We are less than a society if protection of the innocent is not foremost.
In that light, consider the following.

"Recent evidence, however, suggests that the death penalty, when carried out, has an enormous deterrent effect on the number of murders. More precisely, our recent research shows that each execution carried out is correlated with about 74 fewer murders the following year.

It is possible that this correlated relationship could be mere coincidence, so we did a regression analysis on the 26-year relationship. The association was significant at the .00005 level, which meant the odds against the pattern being simply a random happening are about 18,000 to one. Further analysis revealed that each execution seems to be associated with 71 fewer murders in the year the execution took place.

Occam's razor suggests the simplest solution is probably the actual solution. We know that, for whatever reason, there is a simple but dramatic relationship between the number of executions carried out and a corresponding reduction in the number of murders.
It now seems that the proper question to ask goes far beyond the obvious one of "do we save the life of this convicted criminal?" The more proper question seems to be "do we save this particular life, at a cost of the lives of dozens of future murder victims?" That is a much more difficult moral dilemma, which deserves wide discussion in a free society."
Capital Punishment Works - WSJ.com


Further, it is a cowardice that supports evil when we show no faith in our judicial system.

 

[toxicmedia]

(Florida Lawmaker says its time to put the "punitive" back into capital punishment)


"TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — Saying it's time to stop letting convicted killers "get off that easy," a Florida state lawmaker wants to use firing squads or the electric chair for those on death row.

Rep. Brad Drake filed a bill this week that would end the use of lethal injection in Florida executions. Instead, those with a death sentence would choose between electrocution or a firing squad.

Drake, a Republican, said the idea came to him after having a conversation with a constituent at a Waffle House over the legal battles associated with the Sept. 28 execution of Manuel Valle.

Valle's lawyers tried to stop the execution by arguing that a new lethal drug cocktail would cause him pain and therefore constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Courts, however, rejected that argument and let the execution go forward.

But Drake said the person at the restaurant questioned why death row inmates should even be allowed to die by lethal injection. Drake said he agreed and decided to sponsor the bill that would mandate a switch. The GOP-controlled Florida Legislature will consider the bill during the 2012 session that starts in January.

He said government is spending too much time listening to advocacy groups and instead should put in place a death sentence that forces convicted murderers to contemplate their fates.

Lethal injection just allows a person to die in their sleep while a firing squad or electrocution would force death row inmates to think about their punishment "every morning," Drake said."


Fla. lawmaker wants to bring back firing squads - Yahoo! News

All the people I know....who think it would be fun to shot someone else...even a convicted criminal....have never shot someone.

We as a society are no better than criminals when we hand out irreversable sentences.

Which draws a philosophical dilemna I've gone back and forth on....

......which is worse.......an innocent man gets executed, or a guilty man goes free?

Not the case at all.
We are less than a society if protection of the innocent is not foremost.
In that light, consider the following.

"Recent evidence, however, suggests that the death penalty, when carried out, has an enormous deterrent effect on the number of murders. More precisely, our recent research shows that each execution carried out is correlated with about 74 fewer murders the following year.

It is possible that this correlated relationship could be mere coincidence, so we did a regression analysis on the 26-year relationship. The association was significant at the .00005 level, which meant the odds against the pattern being simply a random happening are about 18,000 to one. Further analysis revealed that each execution seems to be associated with 71 fewer murders in the year the execution took place.

Occam's razor suggests the simplest solution is probably the actual solution. We know that, for whatever reason, there is a simple but dramatic relationship between the number of executions carried out and a corresponding reduction in the number of murders.
It now seems that the proper question to ask goes far beyond the obvious one of "do we save the life of this convicted criminal?" The more proper question seems to be "do we save this particular life, at a cost of the lives of dozens of future murder victims?" That is a much more difficult moral dilemma, which deserves wide discussion in a free society."
Capital Punishment Works - WSJ.com


Further, it is a cowardice that supports evil when we show no faith in our judicial system.

I'm all for the death penalty....but I'm concerned with the morality involved in executing innocent people by mistake, and that has happened a great deal.

It's uniquely American for a convicted criminal to allways have the right to prove his/her innocence after a conviction.

However....I lived in Turkey for years and China for about a year...and those two countries have very low crime rates compared to the US, and the death penalty is swiftly enforced in those countries.....but I'm not conviced that the death penalty is the reason crime is lower. I think harsh puishments...swift justice....and making criminals serve their entire sentence without parole...is a bigger deterrent.

But hey!....what do I know....I'm never commited a crime, at least not as an adult...

as far as cowardice.....executing innocent people is the act of cowards.

 

[PoliticalChic]

All the people I know....who think it would be fun to shot someone else...even a convicted criminal....have never shot someone.

We as a society are no better than criminals when we hand out irreversable sentences.

Which draws a philosophical dilemna I've gone back and forth on....

......which is worse.......an innocent man gets executed, or a guilty man goes free?

Not the case at all.
We are less than a society if protection of the innocent is not foremost.
In that light, consider the following.

"Recent evidence, however, suggests that the death penalty, when carried out, has an enormous deterrent effect on the number of murders. More precisely, our recent research shows that each execution carried out is correlated with about 74 fewer murders the following year.

It is possible that this correlated relationship could be mere coincidence, so we did a regression analysis on the 26-year relationship. The association was significant at the .00005 level, which meant the odds against the pattern being simply a random happening are about 18,000 to one. Further analysis revealed that each execution seems to be associated with 71 fewer murders in the year the execution took place.

Occam's razor suggests the simplest solution is probably the actual solution. We know that, for whatever reason, there is a simple but dramatic relationship between the number of executions carried out and a corresponding reduction in the number of murders.
It now seems that the proper question to ask goes far beyond the obvious one of "do we save the life of this convicted criminal?" The more proper question seems to be "do we save this particular life, at a cost of the lives of dozens of future murder victims?" That is a much more difficult moral dilemma, which deserves wide discussion in a free society."
Capital Punishment Works - WSJ.com


Further, it is a cowardice that supports evil when we show no faith in our judicial system.

I'm all for the death penalty....but I'm concerned with the morality involved in executing innocent people by mistake, and that has happened a great deal.

It's uniquely American for a convicted criminal to allways have the right to prove his/her innocence after a conviction.

However....I lived in Turkey for years and China for about a year...and those two countries have very low crime rates compared to the US, and the death penalty is swiftly enforced in those countries.....but I'm not conviced that the death penalty is the reason crime is lower. I think harsh puishments...swift justice....and making criminals serve their entire sentence without parole...is a bigger deterrent.

But hey!....what do I know....I'm never commited a crime, at least not as an adult...

as far as cowardice.....executing innocent people is the act of cowards.

Interesting that you use the word 'morality,' as it may be used in several aspects of this discussion.

1. In the previous post, I see morality as protection of the innocents who will be murdered sans the death penalty.

2. Allow me to add this consideration of morality...while some may take their instruction as to what is moral from the NYTimes, I choose the bible. And the only law specified in all five books of the Old Testament is the proscription on allowing killers to remain alive.

Genesis 9:6 prescribed the death penalty for murder when it said that if a man “shed the blood” of another man, by man must his blood be shed. The only law repeated in all five of the books of the old testament. The death penalty is a value, values are eternal, as opposed to customs or traditions, such as stoning for adultery.
Exodus 21:12-14
Leviticus 24:17 and 21
Numbers 35:16-18 and Numbers 35:31
Deuteronomy 19:11-13


3. "...swift justice.."
Right. It defeats the purpose to have 20 years between the jury's decison and the punishment.

4. "...as far as cowardice.....executing innocent people is the act of cowards..."
This is not a consideration in this discussion:
Who has proposed executing innocent people?

 

[toxicmedia]

Not the case at all.
We are less than a society if protection of the innocent is not foremost.
In that light, consider the following.

"Recent evidence, however, suggests that the death penalty, when carried out, has an enormous deterrent effect on the number of murders. More precisely, our recent research shows that each execution carried out is correlated with about 74 fewer murders the following year.

It is possible that this correlated relationship could be mere coincidence, so we did a regression analysis on the 26-year relationship. The association was significant at the .00005 level, which meant the odds against the pattern being simply a random happening are about 18,000 to one. Further analysis revealed that each execution seems to be associated with 71 fewer murders in the year the execution took place.

Occam's razor suggests the simplest solution is probably the actual solution. We know that, for whatever reason, there is a simple but dramatic relationship between the number of executions carried out and a corresponding reduction in the number of murders.
It now seems that the proper question to ask goes far beyond the obvious one of "do we save the life of this convicted criminal?" The more proper question seems to be "do we save this particular life, at a cost of the lives of dozens of future murder victims?" That is a much more difficult moral dilemma, which deserves wide discussion in a free society."
Capital Punishment Works - WSJ.com


Further, it is a cowardice that supports evil when we show no faith in our judicial system.

I'm all for the death penalty....but I'm concerned with the morality involved in executing innocent people by mistake, and that has happened a great deal.

It's uniquely American for a convicted criminal to allways have the right to prove his/her innocence after a conviction.

However....I lived in Turkey for years and China for about a year...and those two countries have very low crime rates compared to the US, and the death penalty is swiftly enforced in those countries.....but I'm not conviced that the death penalty is the reason crime is lower. I think harsh puishments...swift justice....and making criminals serve their entire sentence without parole...is a bigger deterrent.

But hey!....what do I know....I'm never commited a crime, at least not as an adult...

as far as cowardice.....executing innocent people is the act of cowards.

Interesting that you use the word 'morality,' as it may be used in several aspects of this discussion.

1. In the previous post, I see morality as protection of the innocents who will be murdered sans the death penalty.

2. Allow me to add this consideration of morality...while some may take their instruction as to what is moral from the NYTimes, I choose the bible. And the only law specified in all five books of the Old Testament is the proscription on allowing killers to remain alive.

Genesis 9:6 prescribed the death penalty for murder when it said that if a man “shed the blood” of another man, by man must his blood be shed. The only law repeated in all five of the books of the old testament. The death penalty is a value, values are eternal, as opposed to customs or traditions, such as stoning for adultery.
Exodus 21:12-14
Leviticus 24:17 and 21
Numbers 35:16-18 and Numbers 35:31
Deuteronomy 19:11-13


3. "...swift justice.."
Right. It defeats the purpose to have 20 years between the jury's decison and the punishment.

4. "...as far as cowardice.....executing innocent people is the act of cowards..."
This is not a consideration in this discussion:
Who has proposed executing innocent people?

Executing innocent people is the inevitable byproduct of an insitutionalized death penalty.

I personally respect one's consitutional right to create laws based on the morality of thier choice. I would never formulate my morality based on any media entity. As far as religion...I'm more in line with Bhuddists than Old Testament beliefs.

I think everybody wants to protect the innocent...I sure do.....but one has to really examine closely the measures they propose to protect the innocent.

I forgot which famous lawyer once said "it's better to let 9 guilty criminals go than to execute 1 innocent man".

When the criminal act is disected....it is very rare that criminals have any thoughts whatsoever of punishment and consequences in thier actions. There needs to be a way to extracate these convicted criminals from society, without passing sentences that can't be appealed.

 

[MikeK]

I was reading some threads in this forum, when I stumbled here. Just a while ago, before I came here, I read an article entitled "Florida bill would bring back death by firing squad". Florida Rep. Brad Drake desires the state's system of capital punishment to ramp it up from lethal cocktail. He has released Florida HB 325, a bill that would bring firing squads or the electric chair back to death row. Convicts would be allowed to choose between either of these replacements for the narcotic cocktail. I believe that capital punishment permanently removes the worst criminals from society, therefore, it proves to be safer for us than long term or permanent incarceration. Why? Because dead criminals cannot commit any further crimes, either within prison or after escaping or after being released from it. But we must also consider that criminals are REAL PEOPLE too who have life and have all other emotions that the rest of us are capable of feeling. Now, do you think pronouncing a death sentence will be a better penalty to taper off heinous crimes?

I believe certain types of criminal offenders, such as violent predators, repetitive child molesters, repetitive rapists, etc., are irremedial menaces to society and once identified should be exterminated. The method should be left to discretion of the victims, their wards or survivors.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm all for the death penalty....but I'm concerned with the morality involved in executing innocent people by mistake, and that has happened a great deal.

It's uniquely American for a convicted criminal to allways have the right to prove his/her innocence after a conviction.

However....I lived in Turkey for years and China for about a year...and those two countries have very low crime rates compared to the US, and the death penalty is swiftly enforced in those countries.....but I'm not conviced that the death penalty is the reason crime is lower. I think harsh puishments...swift justice....and making criminals serve their entire sentence without parole...is a bigger deterrent.

But hey!....what do I know....I'm never commited a crime, at least not as an adult...

as far as cowardice.....executing innocent people is the act of cowards.

Interesting that you use the word 'morality,' as it may be used in several aspects of this discussion.

1. In the previous post, I see morality as protection of the innocents who will be murdered sans the death penalty.

2. Allow me to add this consideration of morality...while some may take their instruction as to what is moral from the NYTimes, I choose the bible. And the only law specified in all five books of the Old Testament is the proscription on allowing killers to remain alive.

Genesis 9:6 prescribed the death penalty for murder when it said that if a man “shed the blood” of another man, by man must his blood be shed. The only law repeated in all five of the books of the old testament. The death penalty is a value, values are eternal, as opposed to customs or traditions, such as stoning for adultery.
Exodus 21:12-14
Leviticus 24:17 and 21
Numbers 35:16-18 and Numbers 35:31
Deuteronomy 19:11-13


3. "...swift justice.."
Right. It defeats the purpose to have 20 years between the jury's decison and the punishment.

4. "...as far as cowardice.....executing innocent people is the act of cowards..."
This is not a consideration in this discussion:
Who has proposed executing innocent people?

Executing innocent people is the inevitable byproduct of an insitutionalized death penalty.

I personally respect one's consitutional right to create laws based on the morality of thier choice. I would never formulate my morality based on any media entity. As far as religion...I'm more in line with Bhuddists than Old Testament beliefs.

I think everybody wants to protect the innocent...I sure do.....but one has to really examine closely the measures they propose to protect the innocent.

I forgot which famous lawyer once said "it's better to let 9 guilty criminals go than to execute 1 innocent man".

When the criminal act is disected....it is very rare that criminals have any thoughts whatsoever of punishment and consequences in thier actions. There needs to be a way to extracate these convicted criminals from society, without passing sentences that can't be appealed.

1. "Executing innocent people is the inevitable byproduct of an insitutionalized death penalty."
No it isn't.

2. ""it's better to let 9 guilty criminals go than to execute 1 innocent man".
Actually, the way I've heard it is "it's better to let 100 guilty criminals go than to execute 1 innocent man".
No it isn't.
It's a simple fear of responsibility.

As the earlier post explained, each execution results in over 70 fewer innocent deaths. So the 100 criminals that you choose to release would result in some 7000 innocents doomed.
Absurd choice.

3."....it is very rare that criminals have any thoughts whatsoever of punishment and consequences in thier actions."
A totally fabricated statistic.
And easy enough to disprove. In Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime," he documents that any state that legalizes carry permits sees a drop in serious crime....and surrounding states that don't have the same right show a rise in crime.
You should peruse a copy.

4. Now, if you are going to be consistent with your fear of responsiblitity...I'd like to see you wringing your hands over the Obama administration's increase in CAFE standards:

"What would you say, though, if I told you that this “good thing” that the government is forcing on us in the name of “saving the environment” is responsible for no less than 2,000 deaths per year?

Back in 2002, the National Academy of Sciences did a study on the effects of CAFE. They found that over the three decades CAFE has been in effect, downsizing of cars and trucks for fuel economy has cost us about 2,000 lives per year.

Less steel framing and smaller size equals more miles per gallon. It also means you’re rolling down the road in a vehicle with much less crashworthiness, making you more vulnerable to every stationary object, to that semi behind you … and to the guy in the normal-sized car.

This death toll figure was arrived at long before President Obama recently upped the CAFE standards by 30% and more. The death toll going forward will be even higher."

Pajamas Media » The Hidden Death Toll of Higher CAFE Standards


So, when I hear this nonsence about 'one innocent life' let's compare that to the 7000 plus 2000 innocents about whom you have no consideration.

 

[Katzndogz]

Liberals can extend a lot of sympathy over 7,000 innocent deaths. That's what they want, more feelings.

Las Vegas has a case right now, Javier Raghetti. He's 19. He kidnapped, raped, and tortured a 15 year old girl, then set her on fire. He's raped and tortured before. Libs are screaming because he's facing the death penalty. He took the life of someone's daughter but he's someone's son and it's not fair (that word again FAIR) that he should die.

It's fair to all the girls he would kill if he got the chance. Nor any other victim either.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Liberals can extend a lot of sympathy over 7,000 innocent deaths. That's what they want, more feelings.

Las Vegas has a case right now, Javier Raghetti. He's 19. He kidnapped, raped, and tortured a 15 year old girl, then set her on fire. He's raped and tortured before. Libs are screaming because he's facing the death penalty. He took the life of someone's daughter but he's someone's son and it's not fair (that word again FAIR) that he should die.

It's fair to all the girls he would kill if he got the chance. Nor any other victim either.

We're on the same page, Tipsy...

and I think you put your finger....paw....on a very important point.

For folks on the left, feeling passes for knowing....and emotion is coin of the realm.

The right, on the other paw....is more logic, thought-based...as the old saying goes:

“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”
Winston Churchill

 

[PoliticalChic]

I was reading some threads in this forum, when I stumbled here. Just a while ago, before I came here, I read an article entitled "Florida bill would bring back death by firing squad". Florida Rep. Brad Drake desires the state's system of capital punishment to ramp it up from lethal cocktail. He has released Florida HB 325, a bill that would bring firing squads or the electric chair back to death row. Convicts would be allowed to choose between either of these replacements for the narcotic cocktail. I believe that capital punishment permanently removes the worst criminals from society, therefore, it proves to be safer for us than long term or permanent incarceration. Why? Because dead criminals cannot commit any further crimes, either within prison or after escaping or after being released from it. But we must also consider that criminals are REAL PEOPLE too who have life and have all other emotions that the rest of us are capable of feeling. Now, do you think pronouncing a death sentence will be a better penalty to taper off heinous crimes?

I believe certain types of criminal offenders, such as violent predators, repetitive child molesters, repetitive rapists, etc., are irremedial menaces to society and once identified should be exterminated. The method should be left to discretion of the victims, their wards or survivors.

Harsh, Mikey....harsh!

But ya' got my vote.

 

[Beria]

Gary Gilmore-etc Get the Winchesters out!