Would the death penalty be okay here?

[Bfgrn]

No it is because they are guilty. Megan Kankas murderer is guilty and he is an evil monster whose lethal injection would be far more humane and painless than the brutal rape and torture of a 7 year old.

But you didn't answer my question. How about that KSM? Eric Holder said he will be convicted and will face the death penalty. Bin Laden if caught will be executed. The majority of the public and the president support this. Are they all Nazis and child abusers too?

You're an arrogant prick and I'm disgusted that care gave you kudos. Maybe she missed the posts where you warned me to stay away from children. I hope so.

I have been respectful of others opinions on many issues but I'm starting to get the reasons for so many flame wars. There is no scum too low for the liberals to defend. No wonder this country is so divided.

Fortunately liberals only comprise a small minority in this country. Unfortunately, they are in charge right now.

Answer this one question you pompous ass...how MANY human beings, fellow Americans, that turn out to be proven innocent, but are executed is acceptable to you?

0, what is your point? That does not refute the death penalty at all. How many innocent people sentenced to life without parole is acceptable? ZERO.... Does that mean we should abolish that sentence as well. That argument is a false one. It is actually far easier to get a death sentence overturned than it is a life sentence. The fact is that we need to be vigilant in ensuring that innocent people are not incarcerated and, even though it is impossible, we need to have a goal of ending that travesty. There is a valid point here though, there needs to be some damn good evidence that someone is guilty before a death penalty sentence is pursued. That is where DNA can be helpful.

It doesn't refute the death penalty??? WOW, are you REALLY equating someone who is found innocent after being executed with someone who is found innocent after being sentenced to life?...are you aware of the VAST difference to THAT individual? What if you were a family member or one of the jurors? What a morally bankrupt and ignorant position.

Stick your 'we need to be vigilant' and educate yourself on how, why and how often our system fails, and learn about the corruption, politics and incompetence of the system.

This horrible fiasco is because there are way too many ignorant citizens like YOU.

 

[ConHog]

Oh good one. Sure that's the exact same thing as a trial and conviction.

That's just about as absurd as spending millions of dollars to keep these monsters alive.

Oh and for the record. I do believe in trying minors as adults in heinous crimes. Like this one:



Suspect Guilty On All Charges In Newark Slayings - wcbstv.com

Monsters. All of them. Even the 15 year old.

A 15 year old is not an adult. If you knew anything about human development, you'd be aware that a human brain is still developing even into the mid to late 20's. We wouldn't give a 15 tear old a drivers license or allow them to buy alcohol for a REASON.

He shouldn't be tried as an adult, and he shouldn't be executed.

The Nazis were never aware of their evil, they were highly self righteous ...just like YOU

You have the right to your opinion, as do I...you should NEVER, EVER be allowed around children.

You cannot claim that a 15 year old was unaware of his actions though. There is a point at which a crime becomes so hideous that someone under the age of 18 must be tried as an adult. If that is not going to happen then the laws need to be changed that allow perpetrators of these types of crimes to have more severe sentences at a young age. the fact is there are consequences to actions and that does not change at a younger age. If there was a single murder, maybe I could accept it. Possibly if there were two or some massive mitigating circumstances (like present but not participating). At three and an attempt at a fourth you are losing the cover that age gives you. None of those people that are killed get to come back because the murderer was 15 or are any less dead. The crime is still murder and an under developed brain can only protect you so far.

Now, it may seem a little hypocritical, but even citing the above I cannot and will never support seeking the death penalty for people under 18.

I don't support the death penalty for minors either. Just seems cruel to me.

 

[FA_Q2]

Answer this one question you pompous ass...how MANY human beings, fellow Americans, that turn out to be proven innocent, but are executed is acceptable to you?

0, what is your point? That does not refute the death penalty at all. How many innocent people sentenced to life without parole is acceptable? ZERO.... Does that mean we should abolish that sentence as well. That argument is a false one. It is actually far easier to get a death sentence overturned than it is a life sentence. The fact is that we need to be vigilant in ensuring that innocent people are not incarcerated and, even though it is impossible, we need to have a goal of ending that travesty. There is a valid point here though, there needs to be some damn good evidence that someone is guilty before a death penalty sentence is pursued. That is where DNA can be helpful.

It doesn't refute the death penalty??? WOW, are you REALLY equating someone who is found innocent after being executed with someone who is found innocent after being sentenced to life?...are you aware of the VAST difference to THAT individual? What if you were a family member or one of the jurors? What a morally bankrupt and ignorant position.

Stick your 'we need to be vigilant' and educate yourself on how, why and how often our system fails, and learn about the corruption, politics and incompetence of the system.

This horrible fiasco is because there are way too many ignorant citizens like YOU.

No, most innocent people that are sent to prison for life do not get the chance to prove their innocence as it is far easier for a death penalty case to get an appeal than it is for a lifer. THAT is what I was equating it to. Is that all you have to say? Apparently you do not care if an innocent person is sent to jail as long as there is no death penalty!!

 

[Bfgrn]

0, what is your point? That does not refute the death penalty at all. How many innocent people sentenced to life without parole is acceptable? ZERO.... Does that mean we should abolish that sentence as well. That argument is a false one. It is actually far easier to get a death sentence overturned than it is a life sentence. The fact is that we need to be vigilant in ensuring that innocent people are not incarcerated and, even though it is impossible, we need to have a goal of ending that travesty. There is a valid point here though, there needs to be some damn good evidence that someone is guilty before a death penalty sentence is pursued. That is where DNA can be helpful.

It doesn't refute the death penalty??? WOW, are you REALLY equating someone who is found innocent after being executed with someone who is found innocent after being sentenced to life?...are you aware of the VAST difference to THAT individual? What if you were a family member or one of the jurors? What a morally bankrupt and ignorant position.

Stick your 'we need to be vigilant' and educate yourself on how, why and how often our system fails, and learn about the corruption, politics and incompetence of the system.

This horrible fiasco is because there are way too many ignorant citizens like YOU.

No, most innocent people that are sent to prison for life do not get the chance to prove their innocence as it is far easier for a death penalty case to get an appeal than it is for a lifer. THAT is what I was equating it to. Is that all you have to say? Apparently you do not care if an innocent person is sent to jail as long as there is no death penalty!!

What part of capital punishment is irreversible are you having trouble comprehending?