PDA

View Full Version : The Death Penalty Thread


kittyking
Sep 12th, 2007, 11:23 AM
I think that everyone on this earth deserves Freedom of Speech, even if they are given the death penalty. So heres a thread that reports and tells some news about the people who die via the Death Penalty.

Enjoy (well it could be a good read...)

mckyle.
Sep 12th, 2007, 11:25 AM
I think that everyone on this earth deserves Freedom of Speech, even if they are given the death penalty. So heres a thread that reports and tells some news about the people who die via the Death Penalty.

Enjoy (well it could be a good read...)

Oh. OK.

kittyking
Sep 12th, 2007, 11:27 AM
September 12 2007
Daryl Holton is executed by Electric Chair in Tennessee

He was put on the death penalty for killing his three sons and their half sister. Interestingly enough he supports the death penalty and didnt make any appeals

Daryl Holton, I wonder if your sons and their sister will forgive you in heaven?

mandy7
Sep 12th, 2007, 11:28 AM
If you kill 4 kids, you don't need to RIP, you need to Rot In Hell.

mckyle.
Sep 12th, 2007, 11:30 AM
Me and Mandy think alike!

mckyle.
Sep 12th, 2007, 11:30 AM
RIP to someone who murders :lol:

More like have fun in hell :wavey:

kittyking
Sep 12th, 2007, 11:30 AM
If you kill 4 kids, you don't need to RIP, you need to Rot In Hell.

Yea your right, well at least he'll be happy that he got his 10 seconds of fame on here

kittyking
Sep 12th, 2007, 11:31 AM
RIP to someone who murders :lol:

More like have fun in hell :wavey:

As you'll see it doesnt say RIP anymore

I'd sorta prefer if he cried in hell :tape:

kittyking
Sep 12th, 2007, 11:35 AM
Full story thanks to Reuters

NASHVILLE, Tennessee (Reuters) - Tennessee used its electric chair for the first time in 47 years on Wednesday to execute a man who killed his three sons and their half-sister.

Daryl Holton, 45, was pronounced dead at 2:25 a.m. EDT at the Riverbend Maximum Security Institution after receiving two jolts of electricity, prison authorities said.

His attorney, David Raybun, said after the execution that Holton was now "free of the demons that haunted him."

When he was asked if he had any last words, Holton replied only "Yeah, I do," and said nothing further. He had eaten a last meal of riblets on a bun, vegetables, baked beans, cake and iced tea.

Holton had methodically killed his children and their half-sister in a Shelbyville, Tennessee, garage on November 30, 1997, following a lengthy custody battle with his ex-wife.

Lined up on the promise of a Christmas surprise, the three youngsters, aged 4 to 12, were shot in the back with a rifle.

Holton, who said in newspaper interviews he supported the death penalty, dropped earlier appeals and refused to fight his sentence, opting for electrocution rather than lethal injection.

Tennessee offers the electric chair as an option for those who committed their crimes before 1999, when lethal injection became the state's primary method of execution.

Death penalty opponents contended Tennessee's electric chair, which the state modified in 1989, is unreliable. State officials insisted the chair has been tested successfully several times.

It was last used in Tennessee in 1960 to execute William Tines, who was condemned for rape.

Electrocution was first introduced in New York in 1888 as a more humane method of execution than hanging, but there have been horrific instances of inmates catching on fire, multiple jolts being needed to kill, and bones being broken by convulsing limbs.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976 there have been 153 inmates executed in the electric chair, most recently a condemned murderer in Virginia in July 2006. Holton's was the 1,097th U.S. execution since 1976.

Holton was the second person executed by Tennessee this year and the 40th U.S. execution so far in 2007.

The electric chair is now the sole method of execution only in Nebraska, while nine other states have it as an option or for crimes committed before a certain date.

Holton's execution was delayed when Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen ordered a review of the state's capital punishment protocol because of a number of problematic executions by lethal injection carried out in other states.

Helen Lawson
Sep 12th, 2007, 12:01 PM
The next guy scheduled to die in Florida raped a little boy, did some jail time, got out on parole and then stalked, abducted, raped, and murdered another little boy. All by like age 25! His criminal lawyers are asking he be spared death because his mind can be studied on what drives a murdering pedophile. A novel approach, but I predict he will die next month as scheduled. The scary part is, he looks normal in the mug shot.

Sam's Slave
Sep 12th, 2007, 01:56 PM
i'm totally against the death penalty! i'm for mediaval torture methods! that's what they deserve! oh yeah!

tennislover
Sep 12th, 2007, 07:35 PM
The death penalty is a crime against humanity

mckyle.
Sep 12th, 2007, 08:33 PM
The death penalty is a crime against humanity

so is murder.

woosey
Sep 12th, 2007, 08:44 PM
i don't support the death penalty.

just because somebody else acts heinously, does not mean i have to. revenge is for the tennis court, not another person. for some people, death is too good. the death penalty does not belong in a civilized society. this is not rome.

mckyle.
Sep 12th, 2007, 08:46 PM
I just don't understand why someone should be allowed to live when they have taken an innocent person's life :shrug: It doesn't seem fair or right.

Frode
Sep 12th, 2007, 08:50 PM
I thought the use of the electric chair had been abandoned?

woosey
Sep 12th, 2007, 08:51 PM
I thought the use of the electric chair had been abandoned?

not in the u.s. but different states choose different methods.

mckyle.
Sep 12th, 2007, 08:51 PM
I thought the use of the electric chair had been abandoned?

It hasn't been banned. But it's a rarity nowadays. It's the first time in 47 years in Tennessee.

venus_rulez
Sep 12th, 2007, 08:59 PM
I'm generally a person who tries to alter my beliefs and opinions when I learn or get evidence that something I believe is incorrect. I'm a reluctant supporter of the death penalty. I do believe in some of the studies and what I've heard that capital punishment (at least in the U.S.) hasn't been very effective in deterring crime, but I have to say, despite that, it makes me feel better to know that some of these people are no longer walking the earth.

woosey
Sep 12th, 2007, 09:00 PM
I just don't understand why someone should be allowed to live when they have taken an innocent person's life :shrug: It doesn't seem fair or right.

i don't think it's my right to kill them. what they did is wrong, absolutely. but, i guess i just feel like it would require a certain amount of hate in my heart to actually go and pull the switch.

i believe in putting them in jail and letting them rot for the rest of their lives.

Mforensic
Sep 12th, 2007, 09:00 PM
i don't support the death penalty.

just because somebody else acts heinously, does not mean i have to. revenge is for the tennis court, not another person. for some people, death is too good. the death penalty does not belong in a civilized society. this is not rome.

I see your point, but what do we then do with these people. The penal system is stretched as it is. Prisons are over-crowded and you can't exactly let a serial murderer, rapist or pedophile back into society because they will repeat their crimes. As much as we want to believe that there maybe therapies for these people or reform fo them in prisons, statistics show most of those who committ these heinous crimes re-offend. Granted the death penalty has not proven to be a deterent for violent crimes either, but it is the one of the few solutions we have, and a permenant one at that. I did my Criminal Justice Masters degree project on the juvenile bootcamps and how those did not work. Majority of those juveniles re-offended and overtime ended up as adults in prison for some pretty violent crimes. So what is the solution?

woosey
Sep 12th, 2007, 09:10 PM
I see your point, but what do we then do with these people. The penal system is stretched as it is. Prisons are over-crowded and you can't exactly let a serial murderer, rapist or pedophile back into society because they will repeat their crimes. As much as we want to believe that there maybe therapies for these people or reform fo them in prisons, statistics show most of those who committ these heinous crimes re-offend. Granted the death penalty has not proven to be a deterent for violent crimes either, but it is the one of the few solutions we have, and a permenant one at that. I did my Criminal Justice Masters degree project on the juvenile bootcamps and how those did not work. Majority of those juveniles re-offended and overtime ended up as adults in prison for some pretty violent crimes. So what is the solution?

i think that for the u.s., this is a societal question. i think we need to ask ourselves why it is that our murder and violent crime rates are so much higher than comparable countries in europe or japan.

maybe the problem has to do with the fact that we refuse to have a great educational system for all children.

i don't know. i just think something's wrong when a country as rich as ours suffers from so much violence and destitution.

practically speaking, it's pretty difficult to expect someone who committed a crime to actually change when they are released into the same community that nurtured that behaviour. in those communities, there are no jobs but there is a lot crap going on. plus, many barely receive any job training or gain practical skills while in prison.

i was listening to justice talking - justicetalking.org last night. there was a guy, who had been wrongly convicted and spent more than 10 years in prison, talking about how he had so much diffulty finding work. and he's black so it will be more difficult to find work - his city/state won't expunge his record either.

anyway, building more prisons and jails is not the answer. to me, law enforcement is not even an answer on some level. our country has to have a different attitude toward educating and providing job training for its people, etc.

borisyBACK
Sep 12th, 2007, 09:12 PM
How do you reverse it if he wasn't ACTUALLY guilty?

kittyking
Sep 13th, 2007, 01:03 AM
The next guy scheduled to die in Florida raped a little boy, did some jail time, got out on parole and then stalked, abducted, raped, and murdered another little boy. All by like age 25! His criminal lawyers are asking he be spared death because his mind can be studied on what drives a murdering pedophile. A novel approach, but I predict he will die next month as scheduled. The scary part is, he looks normal in the mug shot.

OOO exciting :lol:

homogenius
Sep 13th, 2007, 03:42 AM
i think that for the u.s., this is a societal question. i think we need to ask ourselves why it is that our murder and violent crime rates are so much higher than comparable countries in europe or japan.

maybe the problem has to do with the fact that we refuse to have a great educational system for all children.

i don't know. i just think something's wrong when a country as rich as ours suffers from so much violence and destitution.

practically speaking, it's pretty difficult to expect someone who committed a crime to actually change when they are released into the same community that nurtured that behaviour. in those communities, there are no jobs but there is a lot crap going on. plus, many barely receive any job training or gain practical skills while in prison.

i was listening to justice talking - justicetalking.org last night. there was a guy, who had been wrongly convicted and spent more than 10 years in prison, talking about how he had so much diffulty finding work. and he's black so it will be more difficult to find work - his city/state won't expunge his record either.

anyway, building more prisons and jails is not the answer. to me, law enforcement is not even an answer on some level. our country has to have a different attitude toward educating and providing job training for its people, etc.

Great post.

Hantu515
Sep 13th, 2007, 05:58 AM
How do you reverse it if he wasn't ACTUALLY guilty?

under the death penaly in modern society not one innocent person has ever been killed Shockingly :rolleyes: most people aren't convicted and sentenced to death if innocent...

I'm very much for the death penatly, call it a "crime against humanity" or whatever, but I didn't hear that voice when Hussein was mass murdering Kurds in Iraq so I don't find you're opinion that valid.

Hantu515
Sep 13th, 2007, 06:00 AM
To clarify the "you're" in that last sentence is a general you not towards any specific person even though i quoted someone, I was pointing towards those that say it as a whole.

Brett.
Sep 13th, 2007, 06:18 AM
The best way to die is to inject them. I think it is an appropriate way to do it. It is more peaceful way to poison them, than electrocuting, shooting or hanging.

kittyking
Sep 13th, 2007, 08:54 AM
The best way to die is to inject them. I think it is an appropriate way to do it. It is more peaceful way to poison them, than electrocuting, shooting or hanging.

Well theirs two sides to that argument

Some people believe they should be tortured before they are put to rest

Interestingly enough in a recent poll only 3.76% of New Zealanders were in favor of the Death Penalty - and the sole Political Party that supports the Death Penalty (www.onenz.com) recieved the least number of votes at the last election :eek:

mckyle.
Sep 13th, 2007, 10:34 AM
How do you reverse it if he wasn't ACTUALLY guilty?

Why do you think they have to be on death row for 20+ years? The justice system wants to make it very clear whether or not they are actually guilty.

kittyking
Sep 13th, 2007, 10:42 AM
Why do you think they have to be on death row for 20+ years? The justice system wants to make it very clear whether or not they are actually guilty.

Daryl Holton was on death row for less than 10 years

~Kiera~
Sep 13th, 2007, 11:56 AM
Personally, I don't agree with it. State sanctioned murder is really no better.

under the death penaly in modern society not one innocent person has ever been killed

That's something you simply don't know.

Numerous people are convicted of a crime only to be cleared years down the line. You don't have that "luxury" if you've already been given a lethal injection.

borisyBACK
Sep 13th, 2007, 02:00 PM
I would rather be killed than spending a whole life in a cell. That would be like a reward to me.

Hantu515
Sep 13th, 2007, 02:10 PM
That's something you simply don't know.

Yes it is something I DO KNOW because no one has ever been proven innocent after they've been executed. If they were PROVEN guilty, and then NOT PROVEN innocent, they were...suspense... guilty.

borisyBACK
Sep 13th, 2007, 02:18 PM
Yes it is something I DO KNOW because no one has ever been proven innocent after they've been executed. If they were PROVEN guilty, and then NOT PROVEN innocent, they were...suspense... guilty.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?&did=2238

~Kiera~
Sep 13th, 2007, 05:10 PM
Yes it is something I DO KNOW because no one has ever been proven innocent after they've been executed. If they were PROVEN guilty, and then NOT PROVEN innocent, they were...suspense... guilty.

That's supposition, not proof.

Not all inmates have the resources or ability to attempt to overturn their sentences. Not all have their cases fully reviewed. The system is not 100% infallible. You would be naive to think otherwise.

Kart
Sep 13th, 2007, 06:18 PM
I think that everyone on this earth deserves Freedom of Speech.

I don't.

Yasmine
Sep 13th, 2007, 06:33 PM
I don't.
:scared: you're turning into a power hungry dictator just like griffin :o

woosey
Sep 13th, 2007, 06:44 PM
under the death penaly in modern society not one innocent person has ever been killed Shockingly :rolleyes: most people aren't convicted and sentenced to death if innocent...

I'm very much for the death penatly, call it a "crime against humanity" or whatever, but I didn't hear that voice when Hussein was mass murdering Kurds in Iraq so I don't find you're opinion that valid.


http://www.innocenceproject.org/

Kart
Sep 13th, 2007, 08:11 PM
:scared: you're turning into a power hungry dictator just like griffin :o

On the contrary, I think I've mellowed in the last few months.

*JR*
Sep 13th, 2007, 08:30 PM
On the contrary, I think I've mellowed in the last few months.
You think trolls on this board should be executed? :hehehe:

Yasmine
Sep 13th, 2007, 08:34 PM
You think trolls on this board should be executed? :hehehe:
I like the idea :hehehe: but then again, where would the fun be? :awww:

Kart
Sep 13th, 2007, 08:40 PM
You think trolls on this board should be executed? :hehehe:

Depends ... do I get to flick the switch ?

Yasmine
Sep 13th, 2007, 09:02 PM
Depends ... do I get to flick the switch ?
and you call that being mellow? :scared:

HippityHop
Sep 14th, 2007, 01:00 AM
September 12 2007
Daryl Holton is executed by Electric Chair in Tennessee

He was put on the death penalty for killing his three sons and their half sister. Interestingly enough he supports the death penalty and didnt make any appeals

Daryl Holton, I wonder if your sons and their sister will forgive you in heaven?


Damn! They executed the man just because he killed his four kids? I don't see what the problem is! :confused:

HippityHop
Sep 14th, 2007, 01:02 AM
The next guy scheduled to die in Florida raped a little boy, did some jail time, got out on parole and then stalked, abducted, raped, and murdered another little boy. All by like age 25! His criminal lawyers are asking he be spared death because his mind can be studied on what drives a murdering pedophile. A novel approach, but I predict he will die next month as scheduled. The scary part is, he looks normal in the mug shot.

I'll bet you that there will soon be a thread on here encouraging us to write the governor to spare his life. :o

HippityHop
Sep 14th, 2007, 01:10 AM
I must admit that I can usually see the other side of arguments that I don't agree with.

But I simply don't understand how people can take the position that people who commit murder (the taking of innocent human life) should keep that which they've wantonly taken from someone else. :confused:

I suspect, but don't really know, that people who take that position somehow think that it makes them morally superior.

meyerpl
Sep 14th, 2007, 02:03 AM
A question for those favoring the death penalty:

Keep in mind that the criminal justice system, because it's implemented by human beings who make mistakes and are sometimes inept or corrupt, will never be perfect. Mistakes are made, they always have and always will. Also keep in mind that, once carried out, the death penalty is irrevokable; it cannot be vacated once implemented. It's an absolute certainty that a percentage of those executed will be innocent of the crime for which they were put to death.

Is it acceptable for the state to execute people for crimes they did not commit? Because, the only way for that not to happen is for there to be no death penalty. Common sense and working directly with the criminal justice system for twenty seven years have taught me that.

HippityHop
Sep 14th, 2007, 04:15 PM
A question for those favoring the death penalty:

Keep in mind that the criminal justice system, because it's implemented by human beings who make mistakes and are sometimes inept or corrupt, will never be perfect. Mistakes are made, they always have and always will. Also keep in mind that, once carried out, the death penalty is irrevokable; it cannot be vacated once implemented. It's an absolute certainty that a percentage of those executed will be innocent of the crime for which they were put to death.

Is it acceptable for the state to execute people for crimes they did not commit? Because, the only way for that not to happen is for there to be no death penalty. Common sense and working directly with the criminal justice system for twenty seven years have taught me that.

No it's not acceptable. However I usually find that people who make this argument to be not quite above board because most of them don't want people executed even for the crimes for which there is no question of their guilt.

By the way, I only believe in execution for first degree murder.
While we're asking questions, does anyone on the board believe that murder is bad?

If the answer is yes, how do we make it clear that we believe that murder is bad? By saying naughty, naughty?

woosey
Sep 14th, 2007, 04:34 PM
No it's not acceptable. However I usually find that people who make this argument to be not quite above board because most of them don't want people executed even for the crimes for which there is no question of their guilt.

By the way, I only believe in execution for first degree murder.
While we're asking questions, does anyone on the board believe that murder is bad?

If the answer is yes, how do we make it clear that we believe that murder is bad? By saying naughty, naughty?

sorry to say, i don't think the death penalty is a deterrent to crime, if that's what you're suggesting it is - that people won't commit murder if they don't their lives may be taken too. putting someone away in prison is for life w/o parole is not being soft - they are still suffering.

back to your other argument -
if i say, i am against the death penalty because a disproportionate share of the people on death row are black males and that in some states, up to 80 percent of black males are accused of killing someone white. and then if i add that many of the black males in fact are not tried by black folks, but mostly white juries, despite the population of the area they are in.

why aren't those valid grounds for objection? i don't understand why someone who makes a different case against it, particularly on the grounds of possibly executing an innocent person, is so problematic or somehow not quite above board.

was it illinois that suspended their death penalty program or put in force a moratorium because of this very reason?

in fact, a new district attorney in dallas - the first black man to be d.a. there - is working with the innocence project to review death row cases there to ensure that people with questionable cases are not killed.

it is quite legitimate to object to the death penalty based on this.

besides this, i object because i feel that it makes me feel low and lowly. i also object because i'm disturbed by who is there and the circumstances that led them to being put there.

you should listen to this program.

justicetalking.org. it's a program on the death penalty. very interesting.

meyerpl
Sep 14th, 2007, 06:10 PM
No it's not acceptable. However I usually find that people who make this argument to be not quite above board because most of them don't want people executed even for the crimes for which there is no question of their guilt.
By the way, I only believe in execution for first degree murder.
While we're asking questions, does anyone on the board believe that murder is bad?

If the answer is yes, how do we make it clear that we believe that murder is bad? By saying naughty, naughty?

I often hear people say they're only for the death penalty in cases where there is "no question of their guilt". Well, how is anyone going to insure that? The answer is, it can't be done.

Are you saying that there is no sufficiently punitive alternative to the death penalty other than saying "naughty, naughty"? I'm a firm believer in life sentences without the possibility of parole for the worst offenders.

All moral arguments about the death penalty aside, if, as you say, executing any number of innocent people is not acceptable, then you're arguing against the death penalty because an infallible criminal justice system is unattainable. Good call! I agree.

HippityHop
Sep 14th, 2007, 07:29 PM
sorry to say, i don't think the death penalty is a deterrent to crime, if that's what you're suggesting it is - that people won't commit murder if they don't their lives may be taken too. putting someone away in prison is for life w/o parole is not being soft - they are still suffering.

back to your other argument -
if i say, i am against the death penalty because a disproportionate share of the people on death row are black males and that in some states, up to 80 percent of black males are accused of killing someone white. and then if i add that many of the black males in fact are not tried by black folks, but mostly white juries, despite the population of the area they are in.

why aren't those valid grounds for objection? i don't understand why someone who makes a different case against it, particularly on the grounds of possibly executing an innocent person, is so problematic or somehow not quite above board.

was it illinois that suspended their death penalty program or put in force a moratorium because of this very reason?

in fact, a new district attorney in dallas - the first black man to be d.a. there - is working with the innocence project to review death row cases there to ensure that people with questionable cases are not killed.

it is quite legitimate to object to the death penalty based on this.

besides this, i object because i feel that it makes me feel low and lowly. i also object because i'm disturbed by who is there and the circumstances that led them to being put there.

you should listen to this program.

justicetalking.org. it's a program on the death penalty. very interesting.

I have never made nor do I make the argument that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime except in the obvious way. Also it's not just "crime" that I argue that the death penalty should be used for but specifically the crime of first degree murder.

HippityHop
Sep 14th, 2007, 07:34 PM
I often hear people say they're only for the death penalty in cases where there is "no question of their guilt". Well, how is anyone going to insure that? The answer is, it can't be done.
Are you saying that there is no sufficiently punitive alternative to the death penalty other than saying "naughty, naughty"? I'm a firm believer in life sentences without the possibility of parole for the worst offenders.

All moral arguments about the death penalty aside, if, as you say, executing any number of innocent people is not acceptable, then you're arguing against the death penalty because an infallible criminal justice system is unattainable. Good call! I agree.

It seems to me that you are arguing here that there is no such thing as guilt because you can't insure that anyone actually committed the crime. And again, I'm only talking about death for first degree murder.

But I find it really strange that you are perfectly willing to allow someone to spend the rest of their lives in prison when you argue that it's not possible to be sure that they actually committed the crime of which they are convicted. I truly don't understand that position. Help me with this.

Kart
Sep 14th, 2007, 08:58 PM
and you call that being mellow? :scared:

Have you seen The Green Mile ?

The difference in me between now and maybe eight months ago is that now I would (probably) bother to wet the sponge.

I feel that's a big step.

kittyking
Sep 15th, 2007, 07:06 AM
How many days til the next person dies?

meyerpl
Sep 15th, 2007, 04:31 PM
It seems to me that you are arguing here that there is no such thing as guilt because you can't insure that anyone actually committed the crime. And again, I'm only talking about death for first degree murder.

But I find it really strange that you are perfectly willing to allow someone to spend the rest of their lives in prison when you argue that it's not possible to be sure that they actually committed the crime of which they are convicted. I truly don't understand that position. Help me with this.
Of course there's "such a thing as guilt." Nonetheless, the criminal justice system is and always will be imperfect. A correct verdict isn't always reached. Most of the time but not always. The death penalty, once executed, can't be undone. When persons convicted of crimes are executed, they're DEAD. In cases where it is later learned that a person was wrongly convicted, they're STILL dead.
Life without the possibility of parole still allows for sentences to be vacated if it is later learned that the person is innocent. The person can be released and his/her freedom restored. They can be compensated for what they lost. You can't do that with a corpse.

Is that clear enough?

HippityHop
Sep 15th, 2007, 06:53 PM
Of course there's "such a thing as guilt." Nonetheless, the criminal justice system is and always will be imperfect. A correct verdict isn't always reached. Most of the time but not always. The death penalty, once executed, can't be undone. When persons convicted of crimes are executed, they're DEAD. In cases where it is later learned that a person was wrongly convicted, they're STILL dead.
Life without the possibility of parole still allows for sentences to be vacated if it is later learned that the person is innocent. The person can be released and his/her freedom restored. They can be compensated for what they lost. You can't do that with a corpse.

Is that clear enough?

It's clear but it still begs the question. On the one hand you argue that guilt beyond doubt can't be insured. Then you argue that a correct verdict is reached in most cases.
Again I ask you if you can be sure enough that a person is guilty so that they can spend the rest of their lives behind bars, why can't you be sure enough that that person is guilty so that they can be executed?

What you have done is in effect supported my point that people who use the "we can never be sure argument" don't want people who are clearly guilty of murder executed.

One of the most interesting things about MSNBC's Lockup is that most of the criminals who are on death row for murder admit their guilt.
Perhaps you don't believe that they are telling the truth when they admit that they sliced the throat of some child but you're willing to believe them if they deny it? That's a choice.

And you avoided another question. What if an innocent person is locked up for 40 years and they die in prison? You can't compensate that corpse either. However, you seem to be willing to inflict that extreme mental torture on an innocent person with no problem.
:confused:

Since we know that there are people who are beyond a doubt guilty of murder, why don't you just admit that you don't even want those people to be executed? If the Virginia Tech murderer had been taken alive you would not have wanted him executed either. Why is that so hard to admit?

Bolt80
Sep 15th, 2007, 07:46 PM
Are you saying that there is no sufficiently punitive alternative to the death penalty other than saying "naughty, naughty"? I'm a firm believer in life sentences without the possibility of parole for the worst offenders.

I believe life without the chance of parole is a far greater punishment than being executed. Assuming they have to spend their time in one of those Supermax prisons or whatever they are called.

HippityHop
Sep 15th, 2007, 07:57 PM
I believe life without the chance of parole is a far greater punishment than being executed. Assuming they have to spend their time in one of those Supermax prisons or whatever they are called.

I used to believe this too. Apparently the folks on death row don't agree. Otherwise why do they drag out their appeals for 20 years or more?
Maybe they know something that those of us who are not criminals don't?

tennislover
Sep 15th, 2007, 08:27 PM
so is murder.

but murder is illegal: how can you just imagine a crime against humanity being legal?

Thanx4nothin
Sep 15th, 2007, 11:23 PM
I just don't understand why someone should be allowed to live when they have taken an innocent person's life :shrug: It doesn't seem fair or right.

A murderer has no right to take the life of their victim, by ***** the people putting the criminal to death is committing a similrly heinous crime. However I must say, some things seem so vile that they deserve more than prison. Only God may judge though.

kittyking
Sep 16th, 2007, 01:41 AM
I was surprised to read that Texas doesnt have the largest amount of Death row inmates. Infact their third (393) behind California (660) and Florida (397).

Saying that Texas is the only state to have more than 98 excutions so far (they have 403)

Fingon
Sep 16th, 2007, 02:25 AM
The next guy scheduled to die in Florida raped a little boy, did some jail time, got out on parole and then stalked, abducted, raped, and murdered another little boy. All by like age 25! His criminal lawyers are asking he be spared death because his mind can be studied on what drives a murdering pedophile. A novel approach, but I predict he will die next month as scheduled. The scary part is, he looks normal in the mug shot.

if they had fried him after her raped the first boy, the second boy would have been spared.

Fingon
Sep 16th, 2007, 02:26 AM
i'm totally against the death penalty! i'm for mediaval torture methods! that's what they deserve! oh yeah!

I think the Chinese are better at that.

Fingon
Sep 16th, 2007, 02:35 AM
but murder is illegal: how can you just imagine a crime against humanity being legal?

can you please make your arguments by writing everything with the same font colour and of the same size?

And yes, death penalty is in the law, that makes it legal

Fingon
Sep 16th, 2007, 02:36 AM
A murderer has no right to take the life of their victim, by ***** the people putting the criminal to death is committing a similrly heinous crime. However I must say, some things seem so vile that they deserve more than prison. Only God may judge though.

I don't believe in God, so letting him to judge it does not work for me (and millions of other people).

HippityHop
Sep 16th, 2007, 02:42 AM
A murderer has no right to take the life of their victim, by ***** the people putting the criminal to death is committing a similrly heinous crime. However I must say, some things seem so vile that they deserve more than prison. Only God may judge though.

Usually when people say that a murderer taking an innocent victim's life is the same as the state executing that murderer they make no disctintion between the two because they both involve taking a life.

To be intellectually honest, they should equate rape to lovemaking because they both involve sexual intercourse.

Where is the supporting evidence for the idea that only God may judge?

kittyking
Sep 16th, 2007, 03:25 AM
Alittle strange fact: No one has ever been executed for death of shooting a mans genitals leading to death :tape:

kittyking
Sep 16th, 2007, 03:28 AM
I don't believe in God, so letting him to judge it does not work for me (and millions of other people).

:lol: I have to say that actually makes sense though...

Karma doesnt really exist on this earth, but this sort of helps Karma working (if your unsure what Karma means call Justin and he'll tell you it means 'what goes around comes around')

meyerpl
Sep 16th, 2007, 08:30 AM
It's clear but it still begs the question. On the one hand you argue that guilt beyond doubt can't be insured. Then you argue that a correct verdict is reached in most cases.
Again I ask you if you can be sure enough that a person is guilty so that they can spend the rest of their lives behind bars, why can't you be sure enough that that person is guilty so that they can be executed?


One of the most interesting things about MSNBC's Lockup is that most of the criminals who are on death row for murder admit their guilt.
That's a choice.

And you avoided another question. What if an innocent person is locked up for 40 years and they die in prison? You can't compensate that corpse either. However, you seem to be willing to inflict that extreme mental torture on an innocent person with no problem.
:confused:

If the Virginia Tech murderer had been taken alive you would not have wanted him executed either. Why is that so hard to admit?
I think you're just pretending not to get it so you can cling to a point of view with a major flaw. Again, the answer to your first question is....because the death penalty, once exectued, is irrevocable. Scores of people have been released from prison after it was discovered that they were wrongly convicted.

Apparently, you aren't aware that it's fairly common, for a variety of reasons, for people to admit to crimes they didn't commit.

I'm not arguing that "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt cannot be insured" I'm pointing out the fact that the criminal justice system sometimes convicts people of crimes they did not commit. That's why, in order to be in favor of carrying out death sentences, you have to either feel that killing a certain number of innocent defendants is acceptable or be living in denial of the fact that it will happen under any criminal justice system that includes the death penalty.

I don't have to "admit" that I also don't want guilty persons executed. That's not the point. I don't want innocent people executed. Unless you can come up with something that has never been done despite thousands of years of trial and error, that is to somehow insure the guilt of every convicted person, why don't you just "admit" that you feel it's acceptable to execute a certain number of innocent people?

HippityHop
Sep 16th, 2007, 06:34 PM
I think you're just pretending not to get it so you can cling to a point of view with a major flaw. Again, the answer to your first question is....because the death penalty, once exectued, is irrevocable. Scores of people have been released from prison after it was discovered that they were wrongly convicted.

Apparently, you aren't aware that it's fairly common, for a variety of reasons, for people to admit to crimes they didn't commit.

I'm not arguing that "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt cannot be insured" I'm pointing out the fact that the criminal justice system sometimes convicts people of crimes they did not commit. That's why, in order to be in favor of carrying out death sentences, you have to either feel that killing a certain number of innocent defendants is acceptable or be living in denial of the fact that it will happen under any criminal justice system that includes the death penalty.

I don't have to "admit" that I also don't want guilty persons executed. That's not the point. I don't want innocent people executed. Unless you can come up with something that has never been done despite thousands of years of trial and error, that is to somehow insure the guilt of every convicted person, why don't you just "admit" that you feel it's acceptable to execute a certain number of innocent people?

No you don't have to admit it but it's pretty clear to anyone reading your response here that that is the case. And it is indeed my point.

The argument that an innocent person may be executed is the only moral argument against capital punishment. And I am willing to admit that it's possible, though highly unlikely under the American system, that an innocent may be executed.

However I hold that far more innocent people will be murdered if there is no death penalty than if there is. Crime annals are replete with situation of muderers who have murdered other prisoners, guards, and who have escaped or were paroled and murdered other civilians outside of prison.

I wish that human endeavor could be perfect but it's not.

However you seem to be willing to overlook your pretending not to get it. You can't even bring yourself to say that the Virginia Tech shooter should have been executed had he not killed himself. Nor can you bring yourself to address the question of an innocent who dies in prison or is murdered in prison. That death is also irrevocable but you seem to have no problem with that.

On the other hand by not addressing those issues you have proven my point that you don't want anyone guilty or innocent executed. It's as clear as a bell but there is something in your makeup that won't allow you come right out and say it.

EDIT: Incidentally, you're not the only person who can't bring themselves to say that they don't want murderers who are proven to be guilty executed. I think it's because you are inherently a decent person and you know that to admit to wanting all murderers to live is an indecent position.

Again the nice thing about message boards it that anyone who is interested can go back and read all of our posts and draw their own conclusions.

With that said, I rest my case. The jury can decide. :)

tennislover
Sep 16th, 2007, 09:00 PM
can you please make your arguments by writing everything with the same font colour and of the same size?

And yes, death penalty is in the law, that makes it legal

a crime legal? impossible: that's no-sense

also nazi laws against Judes were legal: that doesn't mean they were fair.......

tterb
Sep 16th, 2007, 09:53 PM
Usually when people say that a murderer taking an innocent victim's life is the same as the state executing that murderer they make no disctintion between the two because they both involve taking a life.

To be intellectually honest, they should equate rape to lovemaking because they both involve sexual intercourse.

Where is the supporting evidence for the idea that only God may judge?
:secret: That doesn't make any sense.

Murder and the death penalty both involve taking a life without the consent of the person being killed.

Consensual sex is just that - consensual. That distinguishes it from rape, though the actual sexual acts may be the same.

The analogy that would have worked for you is raping an innocent person compared to raping a rapist. In that case, as in the murder vs. death penalty case, the only difference would be the past actions of the victim.

But it wouldn't have sounded as good, I'm sure. :)

HippityHop
Sep 16th, 2007, 09:55 PM
a crime legal? impossible: that's no-sense

also nazi laws against Judes were legal: that doesn't mean they were fair.......

If you are arguing that the death penalty is illegal then you have to also make the argument that imprisonment is illegal. After all the state is taking a convicted criminal against their will and locking them away from their ordinary routine lives. In other words kidnapping.

HippityHop
Sep 16th, 2007, 10:00 PM
:secret: That doesn't make any sense.

Murder and the death penalty both involve taking a life without the consent of the person being killed.

Consensual sex is just that - consensual. That distinguishes it from rape, though the actual sexual acts may be the same.

The analogy that would have worked for you is raping an innocent person compared to raping a rapist. In that case, as in the murder vs. death penalty case, the only difference would be the past actions of the victim.

But it wouldn't have sounded as good, I'm sure. :)

This is generally true, but not always. There are murderers who have willingly decided for whatever reason that they deserve the death penalty and have refused to appeal it. Do you deny that?

Also some might argue that if you commmit murder and you are caught and convicted, you have by your action of committing murder consented to execution.

But then some would argue that there is no such thing as murder.

tterb
Sep 16th, 2007, 10:39 PM
This is generally true, but not always. There are murderers who have willingly decided for whatever reason that they deserve the death penalty and have refused to appeal it. Do you deny that?

Also some might argue that if you commmit murder and you are caught and convicted, you have by your action of committing murder consented to execution.

But then some would argue that there is no such thing as murder.
I won't deny that, but you can't make sweeping claims about those who are anti-death penalty not being intellectually honest unless they support your weak rape analogy, which really only holds in the very specific (and not exactly commonplace) case that you mentioned above.

I understand the second argument, but I prefer to base my arguments on facts rather than subjective moral claims.

And I'm not aware of anyone who would argue there is no such thing as murder. Was that a joke? :confused:

meyerpl
Sep 17th, 2007, 03:40 AM
The argument that an innocent person may be executed is the only moral argument against capital punishment. And I am willing to admit that it's possible, though highly unlikely under the American system, that an innocent may be executed. :)
It's arrogant to think that the fact that an innocent person may be executed is the only moral argument against capital punishment. The issue is far more complex than that. It's delusional to think that it's highly unlikely for an innocent person to be executed under the American criminal justice system. How do you account for the scores of innocent people who have been released from prison, many from death row?

tennislover
Sep 17th, 2007, 11:45 AM
If you are arguing that the death penalty is illegal then you have to also make the argument that imprisonment is illegal. After all the state is taking a convicted criminal against their will and locking them away from their ordinary routine lives. In other words kidnapping.

imprisonment is something horrible too, but there is no alternative to that
moreover kidnapping someone and killing them are different IMHO

Fingon
Sep 17th, 2007, 05:24 PM
a crime legal? impossible: that's no-sense

also nazi laws against Judes were legal: that doesn't mean they were fair.......

you said legal you didn't say fair.

if it agrees with the law, it's legal end of story, you can argue the law is wrong but that's another matter, you should use proper terminology if you are schooling others.

if the law authorizes death penalty, it's clearly not a crime from a legal point of view, moral is another matter and subject to another discussion, but you used the term legal which is completely wrong.

tennislover
Sep 18th, 2007, 07:47 PM
you said legal you didn't say fair.

if it agrees with the law, it's legal end of story, you can argue the law is wrong but that's another matter, you should use proper terminology if you are schooling others.

if the law authorizes death penalty, it's clearly not a crime from a legal point of view, moral is another matter and subject to another discussion, but you used the term legal which is completely wrong.

a crime against humanity is always a crime
and if it's "legal" that's doubly unaccetable

have you ever heard of "human rights"?

ASV_FAN
Sep 20th, 2007, 03:44 PM
I don't understand how governments can promote "an eye for an eye" approach. I consider myself to be pretty conservative in my views but the death penalty is one thing that I just cannot reconcile myself with. Regardless of the crime, I do not believe that anyone in this world has the right to take someone's life.

HippityHop
Sep 21st, 2007, 02:25 AM
I don't understand how governments can promote "an eye for an eye" approach. I consider myself to be pretty conservative in my views but the death penalty is one thing that I just cannot reconcile myself with. Regardless of the crime, I do not believe that anyone in this world has the right to take someone's life.

Finally someone who is honest enough to admit that they want all murderers to live out their lives.

NY Times September 16, 2007

Daryl Holton chose to have
his execution carried out by
electrocution rather than by
lethal injection!

(Riverbend Maximum Security Institution in Nashville, TN) The window blinds to the execution chamber are raised shortly after 1 in the morning, in accordance with the Procedures for Electrocution in the State of Tennessee . And the condemned man is revealed.
He looks almost like a young child buckled into a car seat, with his closed eyes and freshly shaved head, with the way the black restraints of the electric chair crisscross at his torso. He yawns a wide-mouthed yawn, as though just stirring from an interrupted dream, and opens his eyes.

He is moments from dying.

The cause of death will be cardiac arrest. Every step toward that end will follow those written state procedures, which strive to lend a kind of clinical dignity to the electrocution of a human being, yet read like instructions for jump-starting a car engine. Remember: “A fire extinguisher is located in the building and is near the electric chair as a precaution.”

Behold Daryl Holton. He is 45. Ten years ago he shot his four young children in his uncle’s auto-repair garage, two at a time, through the heart. He used their very innocence to kill them, telling them not to peek, Daddy has a surprise. After he was done he turned himself in, saying he wanted to report a “homicide times four.”

In seeking the execution of this Army veteran, now blinking in the cold, bright room, the state argued that Mr. Holton committed premeditated murder, times four, to punish his ex-wife for obtaining an order of protection and for moving away. He killed his children, so he must be killed.

In defending the life of this man — now pursing his lips, about all that he can move — his advocates argued that he believed his children were better off dead than to live in a profoundly troubled home; that he actually felt relief after pulling a tarpaulin over those four small bodies.

He killed his children, so he must be mentally ill.

All the while, Mr. Holton adhered to a peculiar code of conduct that vexed all sides. Those fighting for his life often did so against his will. Those seeking his remorse were unrewarded.
Just days ago he said the crimes for which he was convicted warranted the death penalty, but he pointedly removed himself from that equation. Perhaps to suggest the killings were justified; perhaps to keep things theoretical. No matter. Now, at 1:09 a.m. on Wednesday, Sept. 12, 2007, at the Riverbend Maximum Security Institution, it is about to happen.

The warden, Ricky J. Bell, stands before him, supervising the first electrocution in Tennessee since 1960. Prison officials had hoped that Mr. Holton would choose to die by lethal injection, and had been gently reminding him of this option. But he maintained that since electrocution was the only form of capital punishment at the time of his crimes, then electrocution it should be.

Before the raising of those window blinds, Mr. Holton had started to hyperventilate, and Mr. Bell had sought to calm him by slightly loosening the straps. But now it is 1:10, the blinds are up, the clock is running. In accordance with procedures, the warden asks if the condemned has something to say.

The inmate’s response is so slurred by his hyperventilating that he is asked to repeat what he has been planning to say for a long time. He says again, “Two words: I do.”

This could be a joke of some kind, a cosmic conundrum, or maybe Mr. Holton’s acceptance into whatever awaits him after life. It could be the use of his marital vow as a parting shot at his ex-wife, or perhaps a twisted re-affirmation of his belief in the sanctity of marriage and family.

The warden asks, “That it?” The inmate nods.

Two corrections officers step forward to place a sponge soaked in salted water on Mr. Holton’s bald scalp to enhance conductivity. Next comes the headpiece, which the procedures describe as a “leather cranial cap lined with copper mesh inside.” Finally, a power cable, not unlike the cable to your television, is attached to the headpiece.

The copper mesh pressing wet sponge sends salty water streaming down the inmate’s ashen face, soaking his white cotton shirt to the pale skin beneath. When officers try to blot him dry with white towels, Mr. Holton says not to worry about it, “ain’t gonna matter anyway.”

After the white towels comes a black shroud to be attached to the headpiece. It is intended in part to protect the dignity of the inmate, now strapped, soaked and about to die before witnesses. His final expression, then, will be his own.

Time.

With the push of a button on a console labeled Electric Chair Control, 1,750 volts bolt through Mr. Holton’s body, jerking it up and dropping it like a sack of earth. The black shroud offers the slightest flutter, and witnesses cannot tell whether they have just heard a machine’s whoosh or a man’s sigh.

Fifteen seconds later, another bolt, and Mr. Holton’s body rises even higher, slumps even lower.

His reddened hands remain gripped to the arms of the chair, whose oaken pieces are said to have once belonged to the old electric chair, and before that, to the gallows.

It is 1:17. Procedures require a five-minute pause at this point. A prison official off to the side watches a digital clock on the wall while chewing something, perhaps gum, perhaps to calm his nerves. Two minutes, three, four, the only things moving in the room are his eyes and his jaw, five. The window blinds drop, and a physician begins a private examination.

Later, in the foggy darkness outside the prison, someone will read a statement from the ex-wife, Crystal Holton, in which she says that all the anger and hatred can finally leave her, to be replaced by a child’s innocent love — “love times four.”

Later, well after sunrise, Kelly Gleason, one of the lawyers who fought to keep Mr. Holton alive, will set aside her mourning for a friend and give in to fitful sleep.

Later, in the hot afternoon some 50 miles to the south, four polished tombstones will again cast shadows toward a playground at the bottom of a cemetery’s hill. Arranged in order of age, the stones bear the names of the four Holton children: Stephen, 12, Brent, 10, Eric, 6, and Kayla, 4.



But first confirmation, in accordance with procedures. And now the disembodied voice of Tennessee : “Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the legal execution of Daryl Holton. The time of death, 1:25. Please exit.”


Poor fellow. They should have just let him go. :(

kittyking
Sep 21st, 2007, 04:21 AM
NY Times September 16, 2007



Oh yea great source :lol:



Daryl Holton chose to have
his execution carried out by
electrocution rather than by
lethal injection!



Is this meant to make us feel sorry for him :tape:



Behold Daryl Holton. He is 45. Ten years ago he shot his four young children in his uncle’s auto-repair garage, two at a time, through the heart. He used their very innocence to kill them, telling them not to peek, Daddy has a surprise. After he was done he turned himself in, saying he wanted to report a “homicide times four.”


So because he handed himself in hes mental? Isnt he just saving himself thousands of dollars in legal fees by admitting that he did it?

HippityHop
Sep 25th, 2007, 05:14 AM
By MICHAEL GRACZYK, Associated Press Writer 30 minutes ago

HUNTSVILLE, Texas - Two inmates working in a prison field overpowered a female guard Monday and killed her when they ran her over in a stolen pickup truck as they fled, prison officials said.

One of the prisoners, John Ray Falk, was recaptured within the hour. The second, Jerry Martin, was found several hours later hiding in a tree after a manhunt that included a police helicopter, Stetson-hatted lawmen on horseback and bloodhounds.

Martin and Falk were working outside the Wynne Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice just north of Huntsville when they overpowered the officer about 10:30 a.m. along Interstate 45, took her weapons and stole a Huntsville city truck that was nearby, corrections department spokesman Jason Clark said.

"They ran over the officer," Clark said. "We can confirm she did die."

The guard, Susan Canfield, 59, had been a corrections officer for seven years, Texas Department of Criminal Justice spokeswoman Michelle Lyons said.

After the inmates took the truck, they at some point stole another vehicle and ditched it, too, Lyons said.

Martin, 37, had been imprisoned since 1997 and was serving a 50-year sentence for attempted murder. Falk, 40, had been serving a life sentence since 1986 for murder.

Based on his good disciplinary record in prison, Martin was classified as a minimum security inmate and assigned to do field work outside the prison under supervision.

"In this case, obviously, something went wrong," Lyons said. She said Martin did not appear to be hurt, and would face felony escape charges "at the very least."

The Wynne Unit, established in 1883, is one of the oldest in the Texas prison system. It holds about 2,600 inmates of various custody levels. The unit is about 80 miles north of Houston and shares about 1,500 acres with two other prisons that straddle the main freeway between Houston and Dallas.

Authorities in Utah were also searching for a pair of fugitives Monday after two convicted killers escaped from a county jail near the Utah-Wyoming border.

Danny Martin Gallegos, 49, and Juan Carlos Diaz-Arevelo, 27, escaped Sunday after jumping the fence at the Daggett County jail, about 120 miles east of Salt Lake City, said Jack Ford, a spokesman for the Utah Department of Corrections. He said the men were discovered missing during an inmate count at 8 p.m. — six hours after they were last seen at the jail.

"Both men are considered dangerous. Do not approach," the sheriff's office said in a statement.

Gallegos was convicted of aggravated murder in 1991. Diaz-Arevelo was convicted of murder and child abuse in 2006. Because of overcrowding, the two men had been transferred to the jail from the state prison, Ford said.

In north Georgia, a search ended for three inmates who escaped Sunday night from Fannin County Jail in Blue Ridge, authorities said. They were all in custody by Monday afternoon, Trooper Larry Schnall said.

If there's any justice in the universe these killers will wind up in the homes of the people who..... Never mind. :o :angel:

fioredeliberi
Sep 25th, 2007, 08:14 AM
We are wasting time discussing this.
Taking out the garbage is something normal to do.

fioredeliberi
Sep 25th, 2007, 08:19 AM
During times of war, thousands or mllions of decent people die killing each other for reasons usually nobody is very sure of. If we allow our precious young to risk their lives like this, why do we even bother about some trash?
Have some guts and do the correct thing. People who say nobody has the right to kill another are not living in reality, but in some children's variety show.

kittyking
Oct 5th, 2007, 04:18 AM
Anyone died recently?

meyerpl
Oct 5th, 2007, 11:19 AM
By MICHAEL GRACZYK, Associated Press Writer 30 minutes ago

HUNTSVILLE, Texas - Two inmates working in a prison field overpowered a female guard Monday and killed her when they ran her over in a stolen pickup truck as they fled, prison officials said.

One of the prisoners, John Ray Falk, was recaptured within the hour. The second, Jerry Martin, was found several hours later hiding in a tree after a manhunt that included a police helicopter, Stetson-hatted lawmen on horseback and bloodhounds.

Martin and Falk were working outside the Wynne Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice just north of Huntsville when they overpowered the officer about 10:30 a.m. along Interstate 45, took her weapons and stole a Huntsville city truck that was nearby, corrections department spokesman Jason Clark said.

"They ran over the officer," Clark said. "We can confirm she did die."

The guard, Susan Canfield, 59, had been a corrections officer for seven years, Texas Department of Criminal Justice spokeswoman Michelle Lyons said.

After the inmates took the truck, they at some point stole another vehicle and ditched it, too, Lyons said.

Martin, 37, had been imprisoned since 1997 and was serving a 50-year sentence for attempted murder. Falk, 40, had been serving a life sentence since 1986 for murder.

Based on his good disciplinary record in prison, Martin was classified as a minimum security inmate and assigned to do field work outside the prison under supervision.

"In this case, obviously, something went wrong," Lyons said. She said Martin did not appear to be hurt, and would face felony escape charges "at the very least."

The Wynne Unit, established in 1883, is one of the oldest in the Texas prison system. It holds about 2,600 inmates of various custody levels. The unit is about 80 miles north of Houston and shares about 1,500 acres with two other prisons that straddle the main freeway between Houston and Dallas.

Authorities in Utah were also searching for a pair of fugitives Monday after two convicted killers escaped from a county jail near the Utah-Wyoming border.

Danny Martin Gallegos, 49, and Juan Carlos Diaz-Arevelo, 27, escaped Sunday after jumping the fence at the Daggett County jail, about 120 miles east of Salt Lake City, said Jack Ford, a spokesman for the Utah Department of Corrections. He said the men were discovered missing during an inmate count at 8 p.m. — six hours after they were last seen at the jail.

"Both men are considered dangerous. Do not approach," the sheriff's office said in a statement.

Gallegos was convicted of aggravated murder in 1991. Diaz-Arevelo was convicted of murder and child abuse in 2006. Because of overcrowding, the two men had been transferred to the jail from the state prison, Ford said.

In north Georgia, a search ended for three inmates who escaped Sunday night from Fannin County Jail in Blue Ridge, authorities said. They were all in custody by Monday afternoon, Trooper Larry Schnall said.

If there's any justice in the universe these killers will wind up in the homes of the people who..... Never mind. :o :angel:
It's easy to come up with examples of people who presumably deserve to die.
The problem lies in the fact that a significant number of people have been wrongly condemned to die. If you're in favor of the death penalty you need to ask yourself this question: Are my pro-death penalty sentiments so strong that, given the realities of the criminal justice system, I'm willing to accept a few innocent people being put to death?


If the answer is no, then you cannot be for the death penalty. If the answer is yes, then you have a pretty warped sense of right and wrong.

HippityHop
Oct 5th, 2007, 04:49 PM
It's easy to come up with examples of people who presumably deserve to die.
The problem lies in the fact that a significant number of people have been wrongly condemned to die. If you're in favor of the death penalty you need to ask yourself this question: Are my pro-death penalty sentiments so strong that, given the realities of the criminal justice system, I'm willing to accept a few innocent people being put to death?


If the answer is no, then you cannot be for the death penalty. If the answer is yes, then you have a pretty warped sense of right and wrong.


Not true. I have always argued for the death penalty only for people whose guilt is beyond a doubt.

On the other hand you have argued in this thread that even though you can prove beyond a doubt that some people are guilty of heinous murders you are not willing to say that they should be executed.

My initial argument was that when people take the position that no murderer should be should be executed because an innocent person might die they really are using that as a smoke screen to mask the fact that they want all murderers to keep that which they've taken, their lives.

The argument is based on "we can never really know if a person is guilty". Then on the other hand, in this thread you have argued that you can know that someone is guilty beyond a doubt. Those two positions seem contradictory to me, but then I'm not a lawyer.

My questions to people who make your argument is what about the people who are definitely guilty of heinous murders? Why is it so difficult to say, yes, that person should be executed. If there is any doubt whatsoever, however they should get life in prison without parole. But then another question becomes, if there is any doubt whatsoever, why should they get any punishment at all?

The only argument, it seems to me, that would make your position tenable is if you hold that we can never know if someone actually committed a murder. But you don't seem to hold that. And I'm only talking about executing first degree murderers.

Again, the question is always deflected because I think that most people know that having all murderers keep their lives is inherently immoral. But lawyers (at least many of them, probably due to their training) don't think in terms of morality, only legality.

But the question that I ask is always danced around by people who simply don't believe that murderers should be executed under any circumstances. I've never heard any of them say, "yes, if there is no doubt of their guilt, they should be executed."

I have no problem with people holding that position but I don't understand why they can't be honest enough to state flat out that that is what they believe.

To be fair, I have seen a few people on this board say that they don't think that people should be executed no matter what they've done. It doesn't matter how many children they've raped and murdered by burying them alive or blowing their brains out, or cutting their throats. It doesn't matter. They are human beings and deserve to live.

While I personally don't understand that position, at least they are honest about their position.

The other question that is always ignored or deflected is, why are people willing to have an innocent person spend the rest of their lives in prison? Is the argument that evidence will eventually prove their innocence? What if it doesn't? Apparently, no one has any problem with an innocent person spending 60 years in the hell hole of prison for a crime that they didn't commit. But that's never addressed either and I don't expect it will be addressed here.

kittyking
Oct 12th, 2007, 07:34 AM
No ones been executed in awhile, well not in America anyway (probably a few hundred in Iran in the past few weeks)

KennyChante4ever
Oct 14th, 2007, 03:49 PM
The death penalty doesn't deter people from commiting murder. I don't understand why some people still think that it does. There are people, for example, diagnosed with lung cancer who are still puffing away (after bawling their eyes out). No legislation or motivational speech (or even money, for that matter) will stop people from doing what they feel compelled to do.

JustineTime
Oct 14th, 2007, 04:47 PM
Funny how the left always seems to get it backwards: they call the execution of brutal, amoral, convicted criminals "state-sanctioned murder", and euphemize the state-sanctioned killing of the innocent unborn as "a woman's right to choose". :scratch: :shrug: :rolleyes: :tape:

http://www.aboutabortions.com/

HippityHop
Oct 14th, 2007, 06:57 PM
The death penalty doesn't deter people from commiting murder. I don't understand why some people still think that it does. There are people, for example, diagnosed with lung cancer who are still puffing away (after bawling their eyes out). No legislation or motivational speech (or even money, for that matter) will stop people from doing what they feel compelled to do.


I never argue for the death penalty as a deterrent but as the only fitting punishment for one who commits murder.

However, I'm sure that you are aware of people who have committed murder and then went on to murder other prisoners or guards. Had those people been executed after their first murder, they would most definitely have been deterred from commiting other murders.

kittyking
Oct 15th, 2007, 03:46 AM
Not many people have been executed lately

fioredeliberi
Oct 15th, 2007, 08:29 AM
There is no doubt that the death penalty deters murder.
Look at how the atomic bomb detered imperial japan from fighting on further.
From my experience, harsh and certain punishment(ie: whipping) greatly deters violent crime.

kittyking
Oct 16th, 2007, 10:31 AM
I agree