Child killer's delayed execution means agony for family

[Gunny]

Liberals??? lol...

Ummmmm... the Constitution says no "cruel and inhuman treatment". I thought the right were all such briliant Constitutionalists; literalists every one of you.

But how far do you take that "cruel and inhuman treatment?" IMO,the intent of that statement is not to be taken the point of absolutely NO pain whatsoever.

I am also of the opinion that hanging is problem the least painful form of execution. That or the guillotine. Let's bring those back ....

 

[watermark]

One can only HOPE that it DOES cause pain and remains undetected.

You should never want to see someone die.

 

[Gunny]

You should never want to see someone die.

It is my belief that when one commits a crime as heinous as this, and unjustly takes another's life, then that person's life should be forfeit as punishment.

I don't "want" to see someone die. There are however some people who don't deserve to live as the consequence of their own actions.

 

[watermark]

It is my belief that when one commits a crime as heinous as this, and unjustly takes another's life, then that person's life should be forfeit as punishment.

I don't "want" to see someone die. There are however some people who don't deserve to live as the consequence of their own actions.

Yes, killing people is an excellent way to teach our citizens that killing people is bad.

 

[Steerpike]

Yes, killing people is an excellent way to teach our citizens that killing people is bad.

That's an easy line to swipe from a comedian, but its all fluff and no substance. It doesn't really say anything about the issue, about moral culpability, justice, specific deterrence, cruel and unusual punishment, mistake, or any of the other issues that arise in capital punishment cases.

I'm generally opposed to capital punishment. Not because I think it is "cruel and unusual" as prohibited by the Constitution, and not because I don't think people can deserve the punishment (this case is a good example of where they do), but because we have a flawed system. If we could up the standard of proof in capital punishment cases, allow it only where there is no doubt of guilt, then I'm on board with it. Until that happens I remain generally opposed to it.

 

[watermark]

That's an easy line to swipe from a comedian, but its all fluff and no substance. It doesn't really say anything about the issue, about moral culpability, justice, specific deterrence, cruel and unusual punishment, mistake, or any of the other issues that arise in capital punishment cases.

I'm generally opposed to capital punishment. Not because I think it is "cruel and unusual" as prohibited by the Constitution, and not because I don't think people can deserve the punishment (this case is a good example of where they do), but because we have a flawed system. If we could up the standard of proof in capital punishment cases, allow it only where there is no doubt of guilt, then I'm on board with it. Until that happens I remain generally opposed to it.

Specific deterrence and general deterrence are overblown. They only apply to rational choice and murder is never a rational choice. Besides, to me there isn't much of a difference between dying of old age, after having spent 30 years in perpetual isolation, and dying of a lethal injection. Killing a man who's been rendered harmless in prison is just useless. Vengeance is cheap, and a civilized society shouldn't base its punishment system on it.

 

[pegwinn]

Oh, and such a Christian attitude that ------Prevention?, or just out and out revenge????

Both. The recidivism rate for executed murderers is still zero.

You do realise that one in five death row inmates are later found innocent, right? All the more reason to mandate the building of a truth machine. Then there are no doubts.
Look, the death penalty just isnt worth it. Millions of dollars in appeals courts, just to off some innocent person (20 percent of the time). Put the appeals in line by sentence severity. It would seriously reduce the amount of time in the pipeline. AS to the twenty percent, see the above about truth.

F*ck that. I say put them in jail for life. Isnt that painful enough?? Send them some slippery soap. Heh. Problem is that there is this thing called parole. And even if we say life w/o parole who's to say the sentence won't be modified down the road. No soap, let bubba do em dry.

Killing them wont bring anyone back from the dead, and two wrongs, in this case, especially, dont make a right.

It isn't about making it right. There is no possible restitution that can be paid for a life (making right). It now is about prevention, revenge, and sending a message.

it all depends on what is deemed to be "cruel and unusual", doesn't it?

and that is another one of those situations where your opinion on the subject is worth less than a bucket of warm spit. If the five of the nine supremes say that it IS, then it is - regardless of what you or anyone else thinks.

Here is my bucket of spit. I don't have a compelling interest in making anyone suffer. Thus my choice of execution would be something quick, clean, and self disposing. Drug his last meal. As he passes out, put him in the coffin/bodybag, inject him, close the lid/zipper, bury, repeat until society gets the message.

Liberals??? lol...

Ummmmm... the Constitution says no "cruel and inhuman treatment". I thought the right were all such briliant Constitutionalists; literalists every one of you.

I thought it was cruel and unusual? Anyway cruel, like torture, is self evident. It's the esotericists that getcha. Like "It's cruel to leave alone as he dies...." and other such dreck. Putting down an animal is putting down an animal. Rabid Dog or Rabid Dawg makes no difference. Now, I am not sure about unusual. Another option is to simply walk in the cell, shoot him with a trank dart and carry the body to the morgue. No fuss, no drama, no news at nine.....

Yes, killing people is an excellent way to teach our citizens that killing people is bad.

It's a great way to teach accountability. Hang a sign on him that reads "failed human being", let him get comfortable amongst the garbage in a dumpster, shoot him with a trank, take out the trash.

 

[Gunny]

Yes, killing people is an excellent way to teach our citizens that killing people is bad.

Executing people is an excellent way to teach our citizens that for certain crimes, the penalty is forfeiture of one's own life.

 

[Steerpike]

Specific deterrence and general deterrence are overblown. They only apply to rational choice and murder is never a rational choice.

Specific deterrence doesn't apply to a rational choice. If you execute someone for murder, specific deterrence is accomplished.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Specific deterrence and general deterrence are overblown. They only apply to rational choice and murder is never a rational choice. Besides, to me there isn't much of a difference between dying of old age, after having spent 30 years in perpetual isolation, and dying of a lethal injection. Killing a man who's been rendered harmless in prison is just useless. Vengeance is cheap, and a civilized society shouldn't base its punishment system on it.

Murder is a rational choice for some, they rationalize it all kind of ways. thus the reason we have different levels of specific laws dealing with murder. As for harmless, they are NOT harmless, they can murder again in prison, other inmates and Guards or staff. Further they are not put in 30 years of Isolation, that would be considered "cruel and unusual"

It is not about Vengeance it is about ensuring a killer does not kill again. In fact if the system wanted Vengeance it would NOT operate the way it does now.

 

[watermark]

Murder is a rational choice for some, they rationalize it all kind of ways. thus the reason we have different levels of specific laws dealing with murder. As for harmless, they are NOT harmless, they can murder again in prison, other inmates and Guards or staff. Further they are not put in 30 years of Isolation, that would be considered "cruel and unusual"

It is not about Vengeance it is about ensuring a killer does not kill again. In fact if the system wanted Vengeance it would NOT operate the way it does now.

Is Scott Peterson really any more likely to murder an inmate or another prisoner than any other random thug off the street? Maybe he's heartless, but he's not very dangerous. And, actually, there are people who are kept in solitary confinement for that long. It's just not generally necessary.

And why is the murder rate lower than the national average in all except for one of the states to abolish the death penalty? It seems like the death penalty causes murder!

 

[AllieBaba]

Or he might be the type who will continue to kill whenever he sees it as advantageous to himself.

I wouldn't want to be the mother of his next wife, if he were to ever get out. Nor would I ever want to be someone who had something he wanted.

The guy's a complete freak, and it wasn't a crime of passion, I don't believe.

 

[watermark]

Or he might be the type who will continue to kill whenever he sees it as advantageous to himself.

I wouldn't want to be the mother of his next wife, if he were to ever get out. Nor would I ever want to be someone who had something he wanted.

The guy's a complete freak, and it wasn't a crime of passion, I don't believe.

Of course it wasn't a crime of passion. I was trying to say that he's not dangeorus to inmates. The inmates in that prison could KICK HIS ASS.

 

[AllieBaba]

I think he's probably in seg for life.

Dahmer opted out and was killed almost immediately. But Peterson looks like a special diet whining mama's boy to me...I imagine he opted for seg. That way he can pretend he's important through the mail.

 

[Gem]

My feelings on the death penalty are very mixed...but I have read a few things that have guided my opinions..

One was an essay written by a woman whose daughter had been murdered. (I'm looking for it to post) She read it in court before the jury ruled between life in prison and the death penalty.

It basically, was nothing more than a list. A list of all of the things this man would have been able to do if he was sentenced to life in prison that her daughter would never be able to do again. Further her education, date, watch television, take naps, look at the sky, dream...

I agree with those who say that life in prison is a pretty hellish punishment...but I'm not sure if the death penalty should be as much about that punishment so much as saying, "You - in a horrible and calculated way - took everything that a person has from them. In addition, you probably ruined or at the very least, changed irrevocably for the worst, several or many other people's lives as they now have to go on without that person. For this reason, you do not get to live anymore. No more tv, no more food, no more getting your GED or Master's Degree, no more meeting some psychotic woman online who willing to 'date you,' no more of anything that goes along with living. You lost that privilege."

Its a complicated issue...but I do think that some crimes are so horrible...that the person who committed them should not be allowed to enjoy any of the benefits that come with being alive...no matter how small.

 

[watermark]

My feelings on the death penalty are very mixed...but I have read a few things that have guided my opinions..

One was an essay written by a woman whose daughter had been murdered. (I'm looking for it to post) She read it in court before the jury ruled between life in prison and the death penalty.

It basically, was nothing more than a list. A list of all of the things this man would have been able to do if he was sentenced to life in prison that her daughter would never be able to do again. Further her education, date, watch television, take naps, look at the sky, dream...

I agree with those who say that life in prison is a pretty hellish punishment...but I'm not sure if the death penalty should be as much about that punishment so much as saying, "You - in a horrible and calculated way - took everything that a person has from them. In addition, you probably ruined or at the very least, changed irrevocably for the worst, several or many other people's lives as they now have to go on without that person. For this reason, you do not get to live anymore. No more tv, no more food, no more getting your GED or Master's Degree, no more meeting some psychotic woman online who willing to 'date you,' no more of anything that goes along with living. You lost that privilege."

Its a complicated issue...but I do think that some crimes are so horrible...that the person who committed them should not be allowed to enjoy any of the benefits that come with being alive...no matter how small.

Why not? Does it bring people back to life if we are brutal to brutal people? If so, I'm all on board with you. Otherwise, it's a pointless.

 

[AllieBaba]

No, but it stops the cycle in its tracks. We have the right as a society to execute those who present a threat to our society. And murderers do pose a very big threat. And not just physically. If you suffer them, they contaminate everything around them, and perpetuate the dysfunction.

And even if they are somehow isolated to an extent they can't contaminate, we have the right and the responsibility to make a statement as a society that we DO draw the line somewhere, that we WILL take a stand against certain actions and behavior, and that it will be irrevocable.

It's a matter of distinguishing good from evil, separating right from wrong, and recognizing that some things ARE bad, they shouldn't be tolerated, and we are GOOD people for recognizing that and making the uncomfortable choice to cut wrong/bad/evil out of our midst.

 

[Gem]

watermark wrote:

Why not? Does it bring people back to life if we are brutal to brutal people? If so, I'm all on board with you. Otherwise, it's a moot point.

Of course it isn't about bringing people back from the dead. It is about deciding a fair and equitable result/consequence for the criminal's action.

As I stated in my earlier post - I was moved by being asked to consider all of the things that the victim of the crime was no longer allowed to do...that the criminal would be able to do (even if they were "non-brutally" sentenced to life in prison, according to your views).

I see numerous reasons to be against the death penalty - my post is simply one reason I can see for supporting the death penalty.

 

[watermark]

watermark wrote:


Of course it isn't about bringing people back from the dead. It is about deciding a fair and equitable result/consequence for the criminal's action.

As I stated in my earlier post - I was moved by being asked to consider all of the things that the victim of the crime was no longer allowed to do...that the criminal would be able to do (even if they were "non-brutally" sentenced to life in prison, according to your views).

I see numerous reasons to be against the death penalty - my post is simply one reason I can see for supporting the death penalty.

The criminal is not allowed to do much in prison. I'm sure, if I were murdered, it really wouldn't matter to me all that I couldn't do (nihilist joke). The only real reason for locking my murderer up would be so that he couldn't hurt anyone else... beyond that... I wouldn't really care.

 

[watermark]

No, but it stops the cycle in its tracks. We have the right as a society to execute those who present a threat to our society. And murderers do pose a very big threat. And not just physically. If you suffer them, they contaminate everything around them, and perpetuate the dysfunction.

And even if they are somehow isolated to an extent they can't contaminate, we have the right and the responsibility to make a statement as a society that we DO draw the line somewhere, that we WILL take a stand against certain actions and behavior, and that it will be irrevocable.

It's a matter of distinguishing good from evil, separating right from wrong, and recognizing that some things ARE bad, they shouldn't be tolerated, and we are GOOD people for recognizing that and making the uncomfortable choice to cut wrong/bad/evil out of our midst.

So, to fight evil, we must be evil?

All it is is a continuation of the cycle of violence. We could stop it by ending the violence. Killing brutalizes society and makes murder more common.