death penalty?

In what cases do you think the death penalty should be applied, if at all?

Last night i was watching a show about abductions and murder of teenage girls. In most of the cases, the captors were sentenced to death. Some girls were raped before being killed, but this did not seem to be a factor in the death penalty aspect.

Do you think that the death penalty should be utilized in all murders? murders which include other felonies such as rape... or others situations.

Not necessarily all murders but I do say yes, if you rape somebody and then murder them, if you torture them, if what you've done takes cruel and unusual to an all new height, if you bury your victims alive, anything like that hell yes they should be executed and I think more options should exist than lethal injection: hanging, electrocution, firing squad, and make it a real one, not nobody knows who has the real bullet.

Senseless murders, and even then each case would need to be weighed.

Yesterday, here, a man shot and killed his daughter's violent deadbeat ex in front of a grocery store. He was protecting his daughter and grandchildren, so I do not think a case like this should warrant the death penalty. (As it is he won't be around for his daughter ~ not a smart move on his part.)

I don't think anyone should spend jail time at all for killing an intruder. Ever. I don't care if the intruder is mentally ill or just wants to steal a TV for his drug habit ~ that person has NO right to intrude.

Rapes accompanied with murder, tortures accompanied with murder, mass and serial murders, hate murders. . . Hell, yes, the death penalty! And ~ back on the hot seat again ~ if a violent offender also has a mental illness, same fate.

And I don't believe in trying to rehabilitate any of these people.

Bluesmama wrote:Senseless murders, and even then each case would need to be weighed.

Yesterday, here, a man shot and killed his daughter's violent deadbeat ex in front of a grocery store. He was protecting his daughter and grandchildren, so I do not think a case like this should warrant the death penalty. (As it is he won't be around for his daughter ~ not a smart move on his part.)

I don't think anyone should spend jail time at all for killing an intruder. Ever. I don't care if the intruder is mentally ill or just wants to steal a TV for his drug habit ~ that person has NO right to intrude.

Rapes accompanied with murder, tortures accompanied with murder, mass and serial murders, hate murders. . . Hell, yes, the death penalty! And ~ back on the hot seat again ~ if a violent offender also has a mental illness, same fate.

And I don't believe in trying to rehabilitate any of these people.

Agreed, tenfold.

Has to be extremely heinous. Extremely. And even then, I wouldn't be an advocate for the death penalty, I just wouldn't care. I don't like the death penalty.....period. And death isn't punishment to me anyway. It's the easy way out.

As much as I often get the gut level reaction to skin someone alive (Danny Rolling - I coulda done it to him) I still do not subscribe to the death penalty - only on the fact that humans can't be trusted to get it right.

Worse than being raped and killed by a sociopath is being falsely convicted and killed by society claiming to have god on their side for your murder.

Oh, can't happen? Look up the Innocence Project.

However, they need a sentence of life in prison without parole for the most grievous sociopaths.

I think it depends on the case and the danger level of the criminal. I believe it needs to be an option on the table but I don't think it should be exercised for all murder cases.

Well, y'know. . .

The biggest obstacles with this issue is money and 'space'. We could certainly use many, many ~ MANY! ~ more high-security prisons throughout the whole nation, but how would they be funded??? Also, people are nimbys (not-in-my-back-yard), and restricting prisons to remote places adds an exhorbitant cost ~ one of the reasons Alcatraz ceased operation.

I suppose we could drop them all into the Antarctica with no means of escape. Ain't nothin' there.

Thankfully in Canada I don't have to think about that much as we don't have the DP, however the reason I like not having to think about it is because I am torn. I want to be against the DP but every so often someone comes along that really needs killing like Timothy McVeigh.

Bluesmama wrote:Well, y'know. . .

The biggest obstacles with this issue is money and 'space'. We could certainly use many, many ~ MANY! ~ more high-security prisons throughout the whole nation, but how would they be funded??? Also, people are nimbys (not-in-my-back-yard), and restricting prisons to remote places adds an exhorbitant cost ~ one of the reasons Alcatraz ceased operation.

I suppose we could drop them all into the Antarctica with no means of escape. Ain't nothin' there.

If we called a halt to the "war on drugs" and stopped jailing non-violent drug users we'd have plenty of space. And speaking of cost, it generally costs more to put someone to death than to keep them locked up for the rest of their life. I am generally not in favor of the death penalty but there are some people who are just too evil to live.

^^^^That's only cause we make it cost more.

Alan Smithee wrote: If we called a halt to the "war on drugs" and stopped jailing non-violent drug users we'd have plenty of space. And speaking of cost, it generally costs more to put someone to death than to keep them locked up for the rest of their life. I am generally not in favor of the death penalty but there are some people who are just too evil to live.

Suzi wrote:Thankfully in Canada I don't have to think about that much as we don't have the DP, however the reason I like not having to think about it is because I am torn. I want to be against the DP but every so often someone comes along that really needs killing like Timothy McVeigh.

I have a friend in Canada who's more on the pro side of that fence. She does believe there are some criminals that simply have to be executed for the heinous crimes they've committed.

Alan Smithee wrote:

If we called a halt to the "war on drugs" and stopped jailing non-violent drug users we'd have plenty of space. And speaking of cost, it generally costs more to put someone to death than to keep them locked up for the rest of their life. I am generally not in favor of the death penalty but there are some people who are just too evil to live.

You mean, making drugs illegal? That wouldn't end the war on drugs. Legalized, they would still be expensive, just as prescription meds are, so there would still be a black market out there. And crimes could very well escalate from those who can't afford the drugs off the shelf.

Not to mention illegalities concerning juveniles.

I don't know why it costs so much to put someone to death, unless this includes the annual costs to keep him/her incarcerated until "the day".

Also, population has continued to spread, and we have many illegals in our prisons. Wouldn't do us any good to ship them back ~ their criminal system certainly won't house them for crimes done here.

Bluesmama wrote: You mean, making drugs illegal? That wouldn't end the war on drugs. Legalized, they would still be expensive, just as prescription meds are, so there would still be a black market out there. And crimes could very well escalate from those who can't afford the drugs off the shelf.

No, drugs are TOTALLY inflated in price because of their illegality. Canabis grows on trees. If it was legal to possess, it would be legal to grow for home consumption, just as making beer and wine.

Bluesmama wrote: Not to mention illegalities concerning juveniles.

You mean like making it an adult-only product, just like alcohol? Of course juveniles will continue getting hold of it just like they do now, and just like they do alcohol. Of course you could consider making alcohol illegal.

Bluesmama wrote:I don't know why it costs so much to put someone to death, unless this includes the annual costs to keep him/her incarcerated until "the day".

The cost comes from the automatic appeals that kick in when a death penalty is imposed.

Shale wrote:
No, drugs are TOTALLY inflated in price because of their illegality. Canabis grows on trees. If it was legal to possess, it would be legal to grow for home consumption, just as making beer and wine.



You mean like making it an adult-only product, just like alcohol? Of course juveniles will continue getting hold of it just like they do now, and just like they do alcohol. Of course you could consider making alcohol illegal.

I think you missed my point.

You laugh, but shelving the legal drugs could generate more crime involving underage. By the way, pot is NOT what I had in mind ~ do you think making heroin easily accessible to teens is funny? Of course, the drugs wouldn't exactly be stocked with the Tylenol. But it would still be behind the counter.

And, yes, I think legalizing these kinds of drugs would still be expensive as hell. For one thing, they'd get taxed to death. Lobbyists to legalize pot in California want to tax it to help recover their deficit. Stupid.

I'm generally not for the death penalty, but in terrorist type situations where the perpetrator massacred a group of people I guess it's fitting.

The reason it costs so much to execute is because they first get on average 27 years' worth of appeals, if they didn't have so many appeals available to them and didn't get to sit around for up to 30 years waiting on them, it wouldn't be so expensive to execute them.

Here's a guy with his own ideas on capital punishment. (Also full of holes if you look at the actual studies on 'deterrent' effect)

North Carolina GOP Lawmaker Calls For Bringing Back Public Hangings, Starting With Abortion Providers
By Marie Diamond on Jan 27, 2012

The last legal public hanging in America took place in 1936 in Owensboro, Kentucky. The “event” attracted 20,000 people and turned into such a sickening spectacle that many credit it with ending the practice in the U.S.

But one North Carolina Republican believes that as a country we’ve grown soft since banning public hangings and is calling for them to reinstated as a deterrent to crime. If Rep. Larry Pittman had his way, “abortionists, rapists, and kidnappers” would be first in line for the gallows:

Republican Rep. Larry Pittman, who was appointed to the District 82 House seat in October, expressed his views in an email sent Wednesday to every member of the General Assembly. [...]

“We need to make the death penalty a real deterrent again by actually carrying it out. Every appeal that can be made should have to be made at one time, not in a serial manner,” Pittman wrote in the email. “If murderers (and I would include abortionists, rapists, and kidnappers, as well) are actually executed, it will at least have the deterrent effect upon them. For my money, we should go back to public hangings, which would be more of a deterrent to others, as well.”

Supernova wrote:The reason it costs so much to execute is because they first get on average 27 years' worth of appeals, if they didn't have so many appeals available to them and didn't get to sit around for up to 30 years waiting on them, it wouldn't be so expensive to execute them.

Those appeals are often necessary. Our system of 'justice' is not without mistakes (some due to outright prejudiced malfeasance of authorities)

From the Innocence Project:

Wrongful convictions

As of January 2012, 283 people previously convicted of serious crimes in the United States had been exonerated by DNA testing since 1989, seventeen of whom had been sentenced to death. Almost all (99%) of the convictions proven to be false were of males,[7] with minority groups also disproportionately represented (approximately 70%).[8]

In 2007, after an investigation begun by The Innocence Project, James Calvin Tillman was exonerated after serving 18 years in prison for a rape he did not commit. His sentence was 45 years.

In 2007, Floyd Brown was exonerated for the murder of an 80 year old woman in Wadesboro, NC. In prison since 1993, Brown served 14 years in Dorothea Dix Hospital. Twenty nine at the time of the murder, Brown had the mental capacity of a 7 year old. There was no physical evidence to convict him, only a false confession written by a State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) agent. The claim was that Brown dictated the confession to the SBI agent but given his mental state at the time, there is no possibility that he could have given such a detailed confession. Floyd was convicted solely on the false confession and was not given the opportunity to stand trial because he was ruled incompetent to stand trial. Because of the injustice, Floyd Brown is now in the process of suing the state of North Carolina.

In December 2009, James Bain was exonerated by DNA testing for a kidnapping, burglary, and rape he did not commit. Bain's appeal had previously been denied four separate times. His 35-year imprisonment made him the longest-incarcerated victim of a wrongful conviction to be freed through DNA evidence.

In June 2010, Barry Gibbs was awarded the largest civil rights settlement by the City of New York to date of $9.9 million. He received an additional $1.9 million settlement from New York state in late 2009. He was wrongly convicted of the 1986 murder of Brooklyn prostitute Virginia Robertson based on coerced testimony by a witness during the investigation by NYPD detective Louis Eppolito. Gibbs' original sentence was 20 years to life for the murder, of which he served just under 19 years. Gibbs never expressed remorse for his crime to the parole board, on the grounds that he was innocent and had no remorse. Every two years at his review, the board denied his parole because of his lack of remorse. Gibbs was exonerated in 2006 with help from the Innocence Project. In addition, the conviction of former detective Eppolito for his sideline as a mob hit man and the change in testimony by a witness in Gibbs' case helped him.

In September 2010, days before he was to be executed, Kevin Keith was granted clemency by Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, thanks in part to Ohio's Innocent Project.

In February 2010, Greg Taylor was exonerated for the murder of a North Carolina young female prostitute. Arrested in 1991 and convicted a few years later, Taylor served 17 years in prison. Taylor did cooperate with the police and even offered DNA samples and willing to take a polygraph test. Police charged Greg Taylor and Johnny Beck for the murder of the woman. Yet police wanted Taylor to incriminate Beck but he refused. With the help of Christine Mumma of the North Carolina Center of Actual Innocence, Taylor was freed. Mumma was able to prove the lack of physical evidence towards Taylor and the flawed process. Also, the SBI failed to report all of their testing results during Taylor’s original trial and misrepresented the evidence. Taylor describes this experience as “The perfect storm of bad luck.”

interesting concept. it sounds really crazy, but if the death penalty is meant to be a deterrent, then maybe it should be graphic and seen---in order to deter.

I don't agree with the abortionist tho... abortion is legal.

in south america, there was a serial rapist. he was tied down, and they drew his main arteries on his skin.. then they handed knives to his victims... telling them not to hit an artery. guy was tortured by his victims--- maybe we should do that! lol

Bluesmama wrote: I think you missed my point.
You laugh, but shelving the legal drugs could generate more crime involving underage. By the way, pot is NOT what I had in mind ~ do you think making heroin easily accessible to teens is funny? Of course, the drugs wouldn't exactly be stocked with the Tylenol. But it would still be behind the counter.

And, yes, I think legalizing these kinds of drugs would still be expensive as hell. For one thing, they'd get taxed to death. Lobbyists to legalize pot in California want to tax it to help recover their deficit. Stupid.

And you missed my point. Drugs that were once legal in this country such as marijuana, cocaine and heroin don't have to be made legal again. Decriminalization would end the policy of putting non-violent people in prison for possession and personal use. Read up on what they've done in Portugal and how well it's worked. Putting those people in rehab would free up tens of thousands of prison cots and save billions of dollars. More than enough to house all the murderers we don't put to death.

Alan Smithee wrote:

And you missed my point. Drugs that were once legal in this country such as marijuana, cocaine and heroin don't have to be made legal again. Decriminalization would end the policy of putting non-violent people in prison for possession and personal use. Read up on what they've done in Portugal and how well it's worked. Putting those people in rehab would free up tens of thousands of prison cots and save billions of dollars. More than enough to house all the murderers we don't put to death.

And how much is Portugal paying to "rehab" a bunch of junkies??? Especially since you know they're treating their share of repeaters? Sounds like a babysitting program to me, and is possibly a small part of the reason it's economy is collapsing. Besides, Portugal is a tiny country whose land mass is more or less the size of Tennessee. Can't envision anything comparable.

wants2laugh wrote:interesting concept. it sounds really crazy, but if the death penalty is meant to be a deterrent, then maybe it should be graphic and seen---in order to deter.

I don't agree with the abortionist tho... abortion is legal.

in south america, there was a serial rapist. he was tied down, and they drew his main arteries on his skin.. then they handed knives to his victims... telling them not to hit an artery. guy was tortured by his victims--- maybe we should do that! lol

It would be fine by me. Now that I think of it, WHY is it that executions now are hidden away in a locked room in the prison somewhere? Why not a public hanging? Why not televise the executions and let people see what really happens? It's one thing to think 'oh they died' but it's a whole world of another thing to actually see what happens to them.

And I totally agree with that second point about letting the victims torture their rapists.

Bluesmama wrote:

And how much is Portugal paying to "rehab" a bunch of junkies??? Especially since you know they're treating their share of repeaters? Sounds like a babysitting program to me, and is possibly a small part of the reason it's economy is collapsing. Besides, Portugal is a tiny country whose land mass is more or less the size of Tennessee. Can't envision anything comparable.

Why don't you look that up for yourself? I'll give you a hint: it's less than keeping them locked up. Add to that the decrease in the spread of AIDS. But don't trouble yourself. Decriminalization likely won't happen in the U.S. (but not because we're bigger than Portugal). Our drug enforcement policies have created a very profitable industry with well funded lobbies.