Kill the innocent, but not the guilty?

kurtsprincess said:
The family of the victims are not the only ones who suffer. The family of the murderers also suffer.

My brother killed three women over 20 years ago. He did not get the death penalty; he should have.

Didn't you say in another post that there was abuse in your family towards you and your brother from your stepdad? Do you think this was an impetus towards your brother going astray like this?
 
Hagbard Celine said:
It's a given that murderers have no right to take their victim's life, but what right does society have to take the life of the murderer?

they don't have to but i belive they should .....i belive that a murderer should lose the same civil rights that he took ....and i belive it is societies responsibiltity to do that on behalf of the victim....
 
Many leaders found that impaling the criminal's head on a stick to rot in the sun where everyone could see it, was effective too. There are many options.
 
Nuc said:
Didn't you say in another post that there was abuse in your family towards you and your brother from your stepdad? Do you think this was an impetus towards your brother going astray like this?




ya should have been a 'Cop' I noticed this too...such strange arguments in here today!
 
Nuc said:
Maybe the local DMV should have taken away his license before he had the opportunity to kill the bicyclist? Why is driving considered a sacred right in this country? Our attachment to automobiles has a sick side and this is a good example.

i will bet he had no license....no insurance.... etc.....yet he is drunk and driving....you will say he is sick and needs help.....sure thing.....they have free medical in prison which is where he belongs
 
Abbey Normal said:
Many leaders found that impaling the criminal's head on a stick to rot in the sun where everyone could see it, was effective too. There are many options.


'Count Dracula' rings a bell!
 
Many leaders found that impaling the criminal's head on a stick to rot in the sun where everyone could see it, was effective too. There are many options.

This is what savages do. I thought America was supposed to be the pinnacle of civilization.
 
Nuc said:
Didn't you say in another post that there was abuse in your family towards you and your brother from your stepdad? Do you think this was an impetus towards your brother going astray like this?

damn you are insensitve little prick
 
Hagbard Celine said:
This is what savages do. I thought America was supposed to be the pinnacle of civilization.
Nope that is what one does to the barbarians at the gate...
 
Nuc said:
Didn't you say in another post that there was abuse in your family towards you and your brother from your stepdad? Do you think this was an impetus towards your brother going astray like this?

Killing three women is more than "going astray" Nuc.

Regardless of his past, or the abuse we suffered, he made a choice to take lives.

It's unfortunate that the death penalty wasn't in force at the time (Rose Bird era).
 
kurtsprincess said:
Used properly? Perhaps less time between sentencing and execution? The lenghty appeals process is not much of a deterrent.

We have a local man who has been arrested seven times over the years for DUI and earlier this year he was once again driving home drunk and hit a bicyclist from behind and killed her.

I say he should be executed immediately and take the money used for his trial and appeals process and hand it over to his family.

How's that for being used properly?

It's a good start. For the "no-doubters" their last meal would be breakfast on the day of their sentencing. The judge says, "May God have mercy on your soul", the bailiff walks him out the front door of the courthouse, up the 13 steps, the executioner puts the noose around his neck, pulls the lever and it's over. The whole process would be televised.

For cases, like Scott Peterson's, where there may be some doubt ( I have none personally) the accused gets 3 appeals within 3 years to avoid the rope. His last meal would be breakfast on the morning of his 3rd lost appeal...see the procedure above.

Prison could be a deterrent for non-capital cases too if used properly. Hard labor, no TV, no games. Make it a miserable place to be and fewer people would wind up there.
 
manu1959 said:
i will bet he had no license....no insurance.... etc.....yet he is drunk and driving....you will say he is sick and needs help.....sure thing.....they have free medical in prison which is where he belongs

Yep, but why do we as a society allow someone like this to get a drivers license in the first case or keep it after so much abuse? Cars are as or more dangerous as guns. WTF is wrong with this process and why is nobody doing anything about it?
 
MissileMan said:
It's a good start. For the "no-doubters" their last meal would be breakfast on the day of their sentencing. The judge says, "May God have mercy on your soul", the bailiff walks him out the front door of the courthouse, up the 13 steps, the executioner puts the noose around his neck, pulls the lever and it's over. The whole process would be televised.

For cases, like Scott Peterson's, where there may be some doubt ( I have none personally) the accused gets 3 appeals within 3 years to avoid the rope. His last meal would be breakfast on the morning of his 3rd lost appeal...see the procedure above.

Prison could be a deterrent for non-capital cases too if used properly. Hard labor, no TV, no games. Make it a miserable place to be and fewer people would wind up there.

Why are we feeding someone that's set to die again?
 
kurtsprincess said:
Killing three women is more than "going astray" Nuc.

Regardless of his past, or the abuse we suffered, he made a choice to take lives.

It's unfortunate that the death penalty wasn't in force at the time (Rose Bird era).

I'm so sorry, KP, that you had to experience these things. You are very generous to us with your life story. :bow2:
 
MissileMan said:
It's a good start. For the "no-doubters" their last meal would be breakfast on the day of their sentencing. The judge says, "May God have mercy on your soul", the bailiff walks him out the front door of the courthouse, up the 13 steps, the executioner puts the noose around his neck, pulls the lever and it's over. The whole process would be televised.

For cases, like Scott Peterson's, where there may be some doubt ( I have none personally) the accused gets 3 appeals within 3 years to avoid the rope. His last meal would be breakfast on the morning of his 3rd lost appeal...see the procedure above.

Prison could be a deterrent for non-capital cases too if used properly. Hard labor, no TV, no games. Make it a miserable place to be and fewer people would wind up there.

i like it....i also like the one gun one bullet one cell deathrow .....the new guy gets the gun and the key to the cell
 
Abbey Normal said:
Many leaders found that impaling the criminal's head on a stick to rot in the sun where everyone could see it, was effective too. There are many options.

Public beheading, drawn and quartering - let's make prison and being put to death a gruesome, unpleasant experience.

Then it might be a deterrent.
 
kurtsprincess said:
Killing three women is more than "going astray" Nuc.

Regardless of his past, or the abuse we suffered, he made a choice to take lives.

It's unfortunate that the death penalty wasn't in force at the time (Rose Bird era).

Yes most people can say they got a raw deal or a bad draw of the cards in life, but we are all responsible for ourselves. We are fortunate to live in a country where we can make ourselves. But it's a big responsibility.
 
This is going to be a long night...re: the posts on this issue...time to put on some cabbage and a meat a' balls...as the "Terminator" said "I'll be back"! :)
 

Forum List

Back
Top