Discussions
Executing Murderers
Posted by Timesobserver • 8/07/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Richard Cooey is 267 pounds and he was convicted of raping and murdering two women more than 20 years ago.
In Canada, a bus passenger decides to cut off the head of a man he's sitting next two and starts snacking on the pieces.
We have guys who are beyond guilty and they use appeals just to lengthen their life span and avoid a death sentence. Can someone please tell me why monsters like this should be alive?
whatburnsmybacon.blogspot.com
User Comments
-
What does the guys weight have to do with anything? I missed your point there.
As for the Canadian guy ... ummm, first ... he hasn't had a trial yet. We like to do that first here in this country before we sentence someone. And second, we don't have the death penalty in Canada ... nor is there any huge public desire to re-instate it.-
Your first sentence sums up my immediate thought too. -
Those pesky details. -
The guy was in the news recently, so I put his weight in there because it was a key thing to what I wrote about in my blog.
Anyway, with a bus load of people watching this guy cutting off someone's head and watching him eat it, it's a safe bet he's guilty. -
I heard about that man recently. He said that his weight would hinder them from finding a vein for the lethal injection. That's a new argument...too fat for lethal injection. -
They can use his jugular vein and they won't miss. -
Still, we like those pesky things called "trials" you know with lawyers, judges, juries ... and stuff. Seems to have worked well for us all these years. And no, I don't believe in the death penalty.
-
DrowseyMonkey, no one is saying we should do away with trials and the court system.
-
I agree. I haven't seen anyone here advocating the idea of getting rid of trials.
The man referenced above has already had a trial, been convicted, and sentenced to death by lethal injection. -
Richard Cooey thinks he is too fat to be put to death. He claims executioners would have trouble finding his veins.
-
-
The guy who is overweight says that he has collapsing veins and that could make it difficult for lethal injection as well as the fact that the medication he takes would make the one that anesthetizes him before he is murdered not work properly making his death extremely painful.
The reason they should both be alive is because if we agree that it is wrong for an individual to kill it is equally wrong for the state to kill. Murder is murder regardless of who performs it.-
Well, Gingerbeer25, I have to disagree with your statement. As I wrote in my column, murderers kill innocent people and the state executes murderers, not innocent people.
-
-
BlogCatalog:
Threads about who to tolerate.
Threads about what countries to attack.
My, but aren't we a self-important bunch?-
Well, isn't it kind of the nature of bloggers to be self-important and opinionated?
edit: (Including myself in that category) -
Didn't you start one of those threads Mark?
-
@drjay1966: Apparently you're right, though I tend to read other kinds of posts, of which there are plenty from users of this place.
@Drowsey: My thread asked what tolerance was in the first place. Kinda different in conceptualization, though some turned it into "one of those threads." -
"This has been an unfortunate trend on BC altogether. We attack the premises of threads. Either they are legit from a rules and community point of view, in which case we can participate or ignore, or they're not, in which case we can report." --Mark Stoneman
-
Yes, I remember writing that, but I couldn't resist those three lines above. And I engaged the substance of some of the arguments below. In fact, those three lines engaged the substance of the thread too—just in an ironic fashion. You know, political satire (markstoneman.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/politics-and-laughter/ and markstoneman.wordpress.com/2008/07/17/mutual-assured-destruction-is-funny-t... ). Course it seems to have failed, cause no one's laughing.
-
-
Why "should" anything be alive? -
I do feel that some people are better off not being left around on this Earth.
Or rather, the people on the Earth are better off without them around.
Then again, I'm a big fan of using various self defense methods made available to us victims during or to prevent such a person from attacking, mutilating or heavens knows what else before killing us...
Killing someone like that in self defense kinda takes care of that whole death row problem...-
Yea, isn't it still survival of the fittest?
-
Or the best armed
-
I don't know if you're joking about that, but I agree.
I got beaten up on the other thread about this, but if someone on that bus had been carrying a gun, that maniac could have been stopped, and that poor victim's family could have had their son/brother/uncle to bury. -
Oh no, I wasn't joking about it...
-
I'll park here.
-
-
Just to play devil's advocate here a bit, not all convicts are really guilty - and there's also something to consider about the quality of legal representation the average murder convict who gets the death penalty has received.
Hopefully Tiff can chime in on that. I may be way off base. Thought I remembered seeing something somewhere once that suggested those that receive public defenders are exponentially more likely to receive the death penalty.-
Yes, here in Canada we've had several high profile murder cases overturned lately due to DNA evidence that clears the person that's been held in prison for the past 20 or 30 years. The men wrongly convicted were set free. Kinda difficult to reverse a death penalty.
-
That's probably the only reason I would oppose the death penalty for the vast majority of criminals in the system.
However there are a few....their guilt is undeniable - of course their actually madmen (or were) who not only claimed their guilt but bragged about the deeds, or taunted people with them...
I think it's safe to say that they are guilty, and not worth the community's time or sympathy. -
"we've had several high profile murder cases overturned lately due to DNA evidence that clears the person that's been held in prison for the past 20 or 30 years"
Thank goodness for science. -
I dunno Anok, the cases I'm thinking of ... everyone thought it was obvious that the guys were guilty. But in the end ... they weren't. Which shocked the country. They spent years in prison and the real murderers got away with it and our still out there. Shameful.
-
Hitler.
Charles Manson.
Gacey...
PolPot
Just to name a few madmen that never doubted their guilt
-
Those are hardly good examples. I'm talking about everyday people. Sometimes the system gets it wrong.
-
However I wasn't talking about everyday people. I was talking about the few exceptions.
-
I know what you're saying Kdawg68. In my column, I suggested that murderers who admit their guilt and have overwhelming evidence against them, like Jeffrey Dahmer who had some human hearts next to his milk and butter in his ice box, than yeah, those are the ones we need to put into Old Sparky.
Because the fact is, you can't cure them like a dog who chews up your slippers.
whatburnsmybacon.blogspot.com
-
-
I can't give you a reason for people like that to be alive. I support the death penalty, and I think the seemingly endless appeals process is ridiculous.
-
@Kristilinauer has it occurred to you that by the state killing a person they are creating a whole new group of victims...Even a murderer has a father and a mother. What about those people? You do not decrease violence by increasing the circle of victims...further in the states with the death penalty it is statistical fact that they do not have a lower level of homicide therefore it doesn't even work as a deterrent.
-
To me, personally, once someone I knew or cared about became a torturous murderer, they would already be dead to me.
But that wouldn't be the state's fault. -
Of course it doesn't work as a deterrent. Neither does prison in general. Should we do away with the idea altogether?
What it DOES do is reduce the number of hardened criminals who have done heinous, indescribable acts to other human beings, and who are currently living off of my tax dollars. -
@ Anok, I 100% agree.
-
-
Regarding the endless appeals process: it relates to something called due process. Course we could introduce summary executions, if y'all want. Just gotta repurpose the Constitution first. Move it from the National Archives to the Museum of American History, to recall a curious time when things like that mattered.
-
I think the question though is when does due process become unreasonably due process?
Imean - how many times can someone - or should someone - be able to appeal? -
So talk about that.
-
That's precisely my point. I mean, when someone is convicted of a crime, and then the appeals process goes on for 20+ years, it's too much. Of course they're entitled to an appeal. But allowing it to drag on for that long is unacceptable in my opinion.
-
You've got to get into the specific mechanics of the process for this to go anywhere. I personally haven't got a clue about all the steps involved these cases. I only know that it does seem to leave people in legal limbo for a long time.
-
-
I waver on the death penalty back and forth. I don't want to take this off-topic though so suffice to say my stance on other "issues" would seem to conflict with being in favor of the death penalty, but I've rationalized it in my head. Won't go into it here, but I think it's both inherently human and necessary to constantly contemplate what justice should be.
Personally I'd prefer forms of cruel and unusual punishment, but you'd still have the problem of false convictions.
I think I've finally settled on it. We shall put them to work on massive public works. I feel it's time to erect a series of grand statues in my honor in major metropolitan areas.
Obviously that's kidding. Really I think this issue touches on something else that is a much broader topic. Can criminals be rehabilitated? Not all murderers are imprisoned for life or executed.
Before rushing to conclusion on that, consider the following for a moment. A Jeffrey Dahmer serial killer I think we'd all agree probably can't be rehabilitated, at least not with what we have available today. Even if they could, why should we, right?
But what about an 18 year-old living in dire poverty that joins a gang and commits and ordered killing of a rival criminal gang member? Is there still a chance to rescue him? What if he's 16? Or 17?
I guess what I'm getting at is that I think it ("it" being capital punishment) ought to be an option, but we could do a better job of being "just" with it's application.-
Pffft logic. :Rolls eyes:
Ugh I HATE it when people get all logical about the bigger issues in life!
(I'm Anok, and I approve this message!
) -
Hey, take that sock out of your mouth! All we got was "pfft ughic wovs wise. Ughf fi fatefen pfipfle vgetoh wodjical....."
I'm Phil McCracken and I approve this post. -
Tis indeed one of the more difficult issues, Kdawg. I'm always amazed when people can come up with an easy one-size-fits-all answer that would fit in a message on twitter.
-
Alright that's twice now - Mark's got a poem brewing in him, I know it. He's awfuly literary sounding today. Methinks (and that's twice I've used "methinks" today, thank you all) he should write a masterpiece post while he has the Shakespeare mojo going on.
-
You're in rare form yourself. Think garden gnomes and gardening ninjas.
-
-
@kdawg well you bring up some interesting point and I believe that it is also worth noting that with the degree of racism in the western world the death penalty is not equally applied. Also those with class privilege and the ability to hire good lawyers seldom face the death penalty or receive it as a form of sentencing...how is it fair that people that are stigmatized due to race and class are more heavily punished?
-
Regarding the racism issue, I just did a little research, and among those currently on death row in Texas, 111 are white, 103 are white of Hispanic descent, and 146 are black. I would have to know the particulars about each case to make an informed assessment of racism allegations, but I don't know that a claim of racism can be made based on those numbers.
And for what it's worth (regarding my issue with the "endless appeals process"), 8 of them have been on death row over 30 years, and 52 have been on death row over 20 years. -
Take race out of the equation and focus on poverty level. White, black, red, brown - methinks your level of affluence greatly affects whether you end up on death row.
Where I have heard compelling arguments that race really influences the system is concerning the race of the victim. Would be interesting to see what the average penalty is for killing say a young black girl or a young white girl and see if one's life has been subconciously (or perhaps consciously by some)valued higher than the other. That might be an area easier to correct, since any "system" is going to have flaws in the application of justice. -
The relevant numbers I have seen include not only who is on death row, but who actually gets executed. And there is more than one state involved.
And some of those endless appeals kept people alive to a time when DNA proved them innocent. That's another set of relevant numbers to look at.
And after one does and discovers that innocent people have been sentenced to death, the following questions arise: is it better to execute innocent people in order to make sure the others get their just deserts? Or is it better to let some live in order to make sure the state takes no innocent man's life? Our legal tradition as I understand it favors the latter option and justifies the long process. Only in war on the battlefield do we usually go the other route. -
Kdawg brings up good points about further relevant factors.
-
Very compelling, Mark. I'm telling you, you are in rare form today. Go post, man!
-
-
When beyond a shadow of a doubt ... Take them OUT!
-
The best plan would be to get rid of the death penalty. The majority civilized world has. Japan and the USA keep unusual company by persisting with this practice. Abolishing the death penalty would remove the whole death row appeal process problem.-
Which apparently costs more than keeping the inmates. Counter-intuitive for me, but there you have it. (Sorry, didn't bookmark the article I read.)
-
-
I find it rather offensive that anyone should be given three meals a day, a place to sleep and a "yard" to hang in as a "punishment" for their crime. For those who are 100% guilty, they should be done away with. If someone has admitted to the crime or been caught red-handed (the man on the bus) then, bye-bye. Who cares if it's a painful death? What did they dole out?
-
While I understand that argument and sometimes feel that way about certain cases, I believe this is one of those questions where our intuition and innate sense of justice don't serve as the best guidelines for public policy making.
The weakness in your argument relates to Theresa's above. When is "beyond a shadow of a doubt"? You offer examples. How would you codify that? And how would you write it so everyone convicted of murder is treated equally before the law? -
The relentless wrath of revenge revolves a rage remarkably reasonless. Each side tied to stride inside an eye for an eye however unjustified. Lies disguise this senseless mess, an infinite regress, obsessed to penalize. Victims vandalize and violate virtues guide when they too, victimize. The prize? Everyone dies.
-
Or to paraphrase Gandhi loosely, an eye for an eye and pretty soon we're all blind. (Hind Swaraj)
-
I do like that quote of Ghandis, it reflects my own.
-
No no--if you see someone trying to cut the head off of another human being, you stop them -- if not, the punishment for that should be their own life. I'm not talking DNA screw-ups and what-ifs here, I'm talking FACTS. I mean people who have done it and there is no way that they didn't do it.
Children go hungry in this country and murderers and rapists eat 3x a day. I don't give a crap what they are eating--they're eating. They sleep in a real bed. I think keeping prisoners the way that they are kept is heinous. -
Anniepooh is making a great point here gang and it reflected in my column. There are real monsters out there who are guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, with evidence against them and they confess to murder. Why should our tax dollars keep them alive? What should they even have appeals when they are that guilty?
whatburnsmybacon.blogspot.com -
Just as you feel justified to kill them, they felt justified to kill who they killed. We are all conditioned to behave how we behave.
They kill someone, so we kill them, so somebody must kill us, and so forth...until we are all dead. -
@Annie, @TO: Except, as DrowseyMonkey has pointed out up top, using the Greyhound example in Canada makes no sense for this debate. See her reasons: www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/executing-murderers#comment_515319
-
The price you have to pay for having the death penalty is a long drawn out legal process. The reason for the long process is that it is necessary to safe guard against the death sentence being carried out on an innocent/ or incapable person.
The alternative is to go for the China option and shoot those convicted of capital offenses on the day of sentence. If you opt for this route you have to accept that some innocent people will be killed by the state.
What ratio of innocent people to scumbags are you prepared kill. Is the life of an innocent worth extinguishing in order to execute 100 scumbags? -
@Mark - it makes sense from a FACTUAL standpoint. No, in Canada he will not be given the death penalty - that doesn't matter; if someone does what he does HERE in the US, he should be given the death penalty. If anyone is actually seen committing a murder, they should get the same.
@Morgan - there's no logic whatsoever to that statement. -
Actually, Markstoneman, Anniepooh made my point. If you read my column, I said that if the bus guy did what he did in America, he would spend the rest of his life in a rubber room. But he does make a great example of why there is a need for execution.
whatburnsmybacon.blogspot.com -
Annie, you want to murder a murderer. That makes you just as bad, so according to your logic, you too need to be murdered. get it now?
-
Morgantj, your logic makes no sense. We are talking about executing murderers who have killed innocent people. Murderers are not innocent people.
whatburnsmybacon.blogspot.com -
@Annie: Not factual, hypothetical.
@Timesobserver: I find that bringing in hypothetical examples to address the death penalty question is problematic. The Canada case is only a hypothetical in the US and therefore only useful for stoking emotions such as fear and revulsion. I find the way you brought up the weight problem up top without mentioning what the real issue was (method of execution) also only confuses the issue. It doesn't matter if you do it on your blog. Here you are throwing stuff out there as real discussion points that are mere distractions to the bigger ethical and policy questions involved. -
Markstoneman, I see your point about the details, but the details can be easily found on my blog, including hyperlinks to the news article.
But yes, I am using the man on the Canadian bus to show that people like him should not be clogging up the courts with appeals. That's why I also mentioned Dahmer in here and in my column to further illustrate my point.
-
-
Paul Bernardo, Clifford Olsen, Robert Picton,Charles Manson,etc...
There is no point warehousing this evil garbage...-
Warehousing -- good word.
-
I second that. Warehouse is a great word to use.
-
Warehousing is effective for your argument, because it dehumanizes the people in question. It's easier to kill them that way.
I'm still not convinced intuition and emotions are the best guides for policy making. -
@gerryPlanetEarth
I'm not getting into the argument over the death penalty, but I really wish you'd stop using the Gandhi avatar if you're going to say things he would have disagreed with so completely. -
I tried pointing that out ages ago, but to no avail. Surely dishonors this great man.
Heck, I wouldn't use it under other circumstances either, but that's me, a red avatar. -
Many of them dehumanized themselves by killing their fellow man or woman. They did it to themselves, not me.
-
@drjay1966
"@gerryPlanetEarth
I'm not getting into the argument over the death penalty, but I really wish you'd stop using the Gandhi avatar if you're going to say things he would have disagreed with so completely."
A clairvoyant and a critic... -
If you think a person needs to be "clairvoyant" to know that Gandhi was opposed to putting people to death, and to calling anyone "evil garbage," you obviously know next to nothing about him and his viewpoints. Thus you have strengthened my argument about your disrespectful and ignorant use of his face as your avatar.
-
@markstoneman
"Warehousing is effective for your argument, because it dehumanizes the people in question."
What humanity do you see in serial killers such as charles manson etc.? -
I take this theme of dehumanization from the standard literature on culture in war. I don't have the time to go into all the references and bring it back to a point you will understand in the context of this debate, especially since you apparently don't have the time to read Gandhi whose avatar you use.
You want to read Gandhi on an eye for an eye and pacifism (because that is the context in which he talked about an eye for an eye, not the death penalty, though the point still seems relevant). Here is the text: Hind Swaraj, which is about Indian Home or Self Rule, which for him began with individuals' ethical rule over their own selves: www.mkgandhi.org/swarajya/coverpage.htm
I'm not saying this is the direction to go for a death penalty debate. I've offered other ideas above. But answering DrJay1966 with "clairvoyance" misses the mark. Gandhi wrote a lot that we can read. No need for clairvoyance. -
@markstoneman and drjay1966...
First of all I am not an advocate of the death penalty...Having said that I still maintain "Paul Bernardo, Clifford Olsen, Robert Picton,Charles Manson,etc...
There is no point warehousing this evil garbage..."
Perhaps Mr. Stoneman you could explain to me in simple terms the Point/objective/reason etc. for warehousing evil garbage such as Paul Bernardo, Clifford Olsen, Robert Picton, Charles Manson etc.?
Frankly speaking the suggestion that Ghandi would have championed the rights of serial killers or supported abortion etc. is by your standards historically innaccurate...
I somehow doubt even Jesus would have kind words regarding the above mentioned serial killers...
Moses would have stoned to death Robert Picton, Charles Manson, Clifford Olsen and Paul Bernardo...
It costs millions of dollars to warehouse serial killers...What are our options ?...
-
-
Frankly I am fed up with society trying to understand the psychotic murders, kidnappers and rapists. Frankly I am tired of supporting their lifestyles. When they are caught red-handed (I wonder where that term came from?) then take them into the streets and shoot them dead. Examples might be a huge determent to crime. I mean Tv and movies and even games have taught and sensationalized crime to the point that it is an accepted way of life.
It's sad when our nations youth seem to think that they are more acceptable if they have to go to jail. We need discipline, uniforms and metal detectors in our schools. We need to enforce respect. I am sure that we also need to get them to believe in themselves and feel a sense of community and good will toward their fellow earthlings. -
An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.
On the other hand, I lived near San Francisco when the cops raided a mans home for molesting children. The man escaped, drove to the Golden Gate Bridge and jumped. No execution, plain and simple. I shed no tears. -
Cruel and unusual punishment works better. -
More than 130 people have been exonerated from American Death Rows in the past decade or so, proven innocent. That is sufficient evidence to me that the death penalty has to be permanently retired, as it is too easy for an innocent person to be convicted of a capital crime.
Studies have shown that eye witness accounts are not necessarily reliable. Rape victims have truly believed a man to be their rapist and later been proven wrong by DNA testing. Even in cases like the Canadian bus guy...this person is obviously severely mentally ill...is death now the appropriate treatment for a severe illness of the brain? Hopelessly mentally ill people can spend their entire lives living at the tax-payers expense...shall we kill them to save ourselves some tax money? Or just the ones whose illness compels them to commit an horrific crime?
A jury is comprised of human beings, all of whom are fallible. By their very nature, they are bound to make mistakes. If you think that it is ok for the occasional innocent man to die by the hand of the State, then I ask you to volunteer someone you love deeply...your father, your son, your brother...to be executed. Horrifying thought? Well, regardless of how well they live their lives, they could end up on Death Row and you could be beggared by the expense of defending them and, later, trying to save their lives. It's only OK to mistakenly execute an innocent when that innocent is not one of YOUR loved ones. www.innocenceproject.org/Content/196.php
It doesn't matter if the killing was witnessed, it doesn't matter if our taxes pay for their upkeep. What matters is that in the absence of an infallible system of determining guilt, it is barbaric and unacceptable to mete out irreversible penalties.-
If you read my column, you will see that I'm not talking about guys who say they are innocent. I'm talking about the Jeffrey Dahmers of the world who confess to their crimes and that there is huge evidence against them and maybe even a body part or two next to the Ben & Jerry's in their freezer.
Let's face it, there can be not mistake about the guilt about the people I just described. It's these people who should be given the lethal injection right away.
whatburnsmybacon.blogspot.com -
Someone like Dahmer is obviously not right in the head...as in, suffering some kind of mental or emotional illness or defect.
The appropriate treatment for being mentally/emotionally ill or defective is not death, regardless of how the illness/defect manifests itself. -
The courts found Dahmer sane to stand trial. But what type of treatment could there be for Dahmer? You couldn't rehabilitate Dahmer. What are you going to do, roll up a newspaper and smack him on the nose every time he tries to grab someone at the dinner table?
I did write in my column that instead of killing monsters like Dahmer right away, maybe they should be kept alive to study and find out what makes them tick. That way, we can find a cure to correct them. But outside of that, there are many who don't want to have their tax dollars spent keeping a person like Dahmer alive in a rubber room for the rest of their life.
whatburnsmybacon.blogspot.com -
I said nothing about rehabilitation and I used "treatment" in the generic sense, not the medical.
I think the primary purpose of prisons should be to separate those who cannot or will not abide by the laws from the rest of society. I like Canada's dangerous criminal statute which allows the truly dangerous to be kept away from society for an indeterminate period of time without the silliness of "three strikes."
It doesn't take a psychiatrist to see that Dahmer was not right in the head. Can you imagine a sane person doing what he did? Andrea Yates was, in every sense, insane and yet was she not sentenced to death? We who call for the deaths of people who are so obviously dysfunctional...are we any less savage ourselves?
When you don't kill the offender, you leave the door open for new technologies to either exonerate them or actually find ways to treat them. If you kill them, you may be killing the innocent or the defective. How can that ever be justified??
I think that if we must err, we must err on the side of conservatism and keep them alive, just in case... -
I agree sweeviolet.
-
If we don't kill them, it would be a waste of tax payer money. And what type of treatment is there for these people? To me, that sounds like rehabilitation, unless you mean pumping them full of drugs until their in La La Land and that sounds like more waste of tax payer money.
Now, I'm not talking about the cases where the man or woman might be innocent. I'm talking about cases like Dahmer and Yates who are beyond guilty. I'm not trying to lump everyone on death row in one group, as I stated countless times.
Now, I agree that the three strikes rule was not the best one, but I don't believe it was for murderers. -
I guess I'm cold-hearted. I have absolutely no desire to see people like Dahmer "treated" in any way at the expense of tax payers.
-
Andrea Yates was unquestionably guilty. She was also suffering a severe psychosis, which caused her to commit a heinous crime: she drowned her five children in the bathtub. Should she be put to death? Or locked up for the rest of her life...at tax payer expense?
In putting tax payer's moneys ahead of human life, where do you draw the line? What about a terminally ill person who is destitute and in a tax-supported hospital? Shall we save a few nickels by yanking the plug, even though the person is lucid, just poor and dying? He's going to die anyway, right? Why not hurry him along and save a few quid?
Saving money is a barbaric excuse for killing a person, no matter what the person is believed to have done. Nobody in their right mind commits the kind of crimes Dahmer was convicted of...the legal definition of being capable of standing trial has nothing to do with whether or not a person is mentally ill. The severely mentally ill spend entire lifetimes supping at the public trough...should we kill them as well? or just the ones whose illness drove them to commit a horrific crime? -
Andrea Yates was unquestionably guilty. She was also suffering a severe psychosis, which caused her to commit a heinous crime: she drowned her five children in the bathtub. Should she be put to death? Or locked up for the rest of her life...at tax payer expense?
I have a very cheap and easy way to solve that pesky expensive execution issue - and yes, I believe she should have been put to death...killing five innocent children that she CHOSE to bring into this world...
Of course, no one likes my inexpensive execution plan - so I'll let it lie Suffice it to say, I am not a pacifist, and mental illness, psychotic disorder or not, someone who is that big of a danger to others does not have the right to live.
I'm quite certain that all sadist serial killers and the like have something wrong with them mentally - or they wouldn't act the way they do, that does not mean they deserve pity or mercy. I say let natural selection get back to work on weeding out people like this.... -
To add what Anok said, you can't really bring a homeless terminally ill person into this discussion SweetViolet. Let's face it, no one can compare that type of person to Andrea Yates. Yates is a killer and a terminally ill person isn't. Two very different types of people.
Of course we should treat a terminally ill person or do everything in our power to make them comfortable before they die.
A killer who took a life in a savage way doesn't deserve mercy.
And Anok, I would love to hear your money saving way of executing these killers! :-)
whatburnsmybacon.blogspot.com
-
-
Throw them all to the lions. -
What does the second one have to do with anything? LOL i guess it depends on how close these crimes were commited to you? i read things like this and i feel like they have to be put through the judicial system and be processed legally before they can be put to death but if something happeend liek this to someoen i knew or was close by the i would say off with thir heads! -
I say let them rot in jail but make it so that they dont get parole or anything. Life in a cell. Till death. -
my believe: the intent to kill was formed by the persons will, mind set or whatever the self is called. humans love to judge the evil, but...you cast the first stone if sin hasn´t touched you yet. no one has the right to kill another human being.
*
although i can understand the feeling "uugh, i want to ..." - murderer, get rid of the feeling, control yourself, meditate or call emergency. btw: soldiers are killers - so shall we leave the decision to god?
*
question:
"A man can surely do what he wills to do, but - can he determine what he wills or can he not?" (schopenhauer believes the last)
*
wishing you all veryheavenly feelings
;-) -
Enough with this looney liberal crap about no death penalty and let's use rehabilitation, and let's show that we're not perpetuating the circle of death.
THAT'S BOLLOCKS!
When you find a three year old lying dead under a pile of leaves whose vagina has been torn open causing her to bleed to death, I find it a bit insulting to hear shitbags talking crap about let's not execute the bastard who did it.
Canada's judicial system is a joke. I thought I'd seen bad in England. I don't think any liberal Canadian should ever talk about the death penalty. Limp wristed liberal twits!-
You're right -- frequently I find myself thinking, you know what... there really aren't enough people being killed every day.
We need more government sponsored programs to supervise the killing of more people. Who cares about the possibility of killing more innocent people, the more people we can kill the less bad people will be around! Even if we get it wrong sometimes, it's not a big deal right? It's not like the police arrest guilty people ever -- if they've been arrested they must have done something wrong.
So let's just kill them. Let's kill them all to get to the real bad guys.
Actually, it shouldn't be just up to the government to kill the real evil people, we should have companies on alert at all times to kill those really evil people -- why not get google to do it? They can do everything else.
Let's start arming everyone too, just to make sure all the bad people die.
That'll solve all of our problems.
-
-
No Lovelan...
What we need are looney liberal morons who can look at dead baby girls who've been raped so violently, they only have one big hole between their legs and decide the murdering rapist is a good enough human being committing good enough deeds to deserve life.
It's liberal idiots like you that make me want to become a right-winger.
There's nothing wrong with killing dude, so stop acting like there is. Killing people has prevented the deaths of hundreds of millions.
Yeah why not tell a few Auschwitz survivors that Israel was wrong to execute Eichmann. Why not tell some Bergen-Belsen survivors that the death sentences handed out at Nuremburg were wrong.
How about the woman who cooked her baby daughter to death in a microwave because she was having boyfriend troubles, should be given the Congressional Medal of Honor? DUDE SHUT UP!-
YEs. For once i agree with you
those that take a life should forfeit their own.
Including that killer that you sympathized with. -
When you ignore the facts and make personal attack on people it just seems more ignorant and reveals that you don't have any good arguments.
Please show me some evidence, cite a scholarly source that backs up your claim that killing has saved 100s of millions.
I'm not talking about cooking babies in microwaves or rapes. I'm talking about the people who are wrongly executed. Everyone who is accused of murder or arrested for murder IS NOT GUILTY! The courts have the ability to take a way a person's whole life. They are imprisoned and ostracized for the rest of their life, guilty or not. So what if every guilty sentence was given a death sentence? How many innocent people should we kill? How many innocent people is it okay to kill to make killing guilty people okay?
Laws cannot and should not be made based on exceptions.
-
-
Dude...
I'm not saying that I'm 100% sure Khan was provoked. It's possible he did murder the guy without any mitigating circumstances.
I was saying that based upon my own personal experiences of the British Nationalist Party I'd be willing to bet everything I had that he was provoked, or him/his families lives were threatened.
Those that murder should forfeit their own. Those that kill in defence should not. -
Oh, i forget.
YOU Decide who gets to die too of course.
lol, are you taking anything for those delusions of grandure?
Manslaughter is not self defense. You stab someone, thats just murder with a good attourney.-
There's many scenarios in which a person could justified in stabbing someone.
ILLUSIONS of grandeur! I have none.
I would gladly decide which criminals get to live and which get to die. The ones who commit premeditated murder and sexual offences against children I would gladly make the choice to hang, draw and quarter them. I've no compassion for those.
If I was confronted by the BNP and they threatened a brown skinned member of my families life, I'd not hesitate to stab the git in the chest and dump his racist ass in a ditch.
-
-
Lovelan...
Some of it is common sense. Historical deeds committed by the Nazi's show that if the Allies had not killed millions of Hitler's flunkies, hundreds of millions more would have died as the Nazi's got more powerful. Are you going to dispute this because there is no solid evidence? Ha!
I'm not talking about cases where there's room for doubt. I'm talking about cases where the murderer is guilty beyond any doubt.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
