Author Topic: Sniper update:Weapon found (Read 1075 times)

SaburoS · « **Reply #60 on:** October 27, 2002, 02:57:53 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Creamo
Actually, even if the trial is expensive for capitol cases, it's a set expense.

Would not housing them for the next 40 years not be more expensive then giving them the black needle? Unless you just don't go for the death penalty at all I guess.

In that case, making them chain gang and make big rocks into gravel without the expensive capitol case would certainly suffice.

See, you made me not want to have them shot at a shooting range for Army round testing, nor chased by lions at the Super Bowl halftime.

Naw, it's not just the trial fees but the enormous attorney fees from the appeals, investigations, etc.

Honestly, I wouldn't lose sleep if these two do get the death penalty as it seems open and shut. I wouldn't lose sleep if they spent the rest of their lives behind bars either. In either case they'll be punished good enough. Killing them doesn't bring back the victims. BTW whether by execution or by natural causes, they'll die in either case. They are no longer a threat to society as they are in custody. Don't confuse revenge and justice as being one and the same.

FBI_GOV · « **Reply #61 on:** October 27, 2002, 03:06:59 AM »

I hope they put those two lunatics in the bin for a long time. Glad to have seen them caught and will be brought to justice.

lazs2 · « **Reply #62 on:** October 27, 2002, 09:55:16 AM »

saburo... not sure I understand you.. Are you saying "would I rateher have a vicious murderer executed than be given a life sentence?" If so... yes, I would. I don't trust those in charge enough to keep their word for 40 or 50 years. I think parole boards are a joke. I know that if the person is dead then he will never be a threat again. People doing "life in prison" have killed other inmates and even guards. The possibility allways exists. I can see a grass roots program of well meaning idiots campainging to free these two 30 years from now when they become the next "birdmen of alcatr4az" or something.

also... it appears that you feel that executing them is cruel but... if you kept them seperated from all human contact for the rest of their life (the only way to 'guarentee' that they would not harm another human being) then.... you are torturing that person. I am not into torture. I am saying that the persons life is a hell and putting him out of his misery is a blessing to both him and us.
lazs

lazs2 · « **Reply #63 on:** October 27, 2002, 09:58:01 AM »

OI guess what I am saying is that punishment.... punishment has a point if it has an endgame.... life in prison is not punishment it is torture. It is reckless torture with no endgame.. no point. The only point is for those who don't think beyond the emotional to "feel" better about themselves.
lazs

Erlkonig · « **Reply #64 on:** October 27, 2002, 12:34:50 PM »

Life in prison w/o parole is not torture. But I'm glad I was able to clear that up for you.

SaburoS · « **Reply #65 on:** October 27, 2002, 01:03:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
saburo... not sure I understand you.. Are you saying "would I rateher have a vicious murderer executed than be given a life sentence?" If so... yes, I would. I don't trust those in charge enough to keep their word for 40 or 50 years. I think parole boards are a joke. I know that if the person is dead then he will never be a threat again. People doing "life in prison" have killed other inmates and even guards. The possibility allways exists. I can see a grass roots program of well meaning idiots campainging to free these two 30 years from now when they become the next "birdmen of alcatr4az" or something.

also... it appears that you feel that executing them is cruel but... if you kept them seperated from all human contact for the rest of their life (the only way to 'guarentee' that they would not harm another human being) then.... you are torturing that person. I am not into torture. I am saying that the persons life is a hell and putting him out of his misery is a blessing to both him and us.
lazs

Didn't say that executing those two would be cruel. Like I said above I wouldn't lose sleep over it. However there are enough cases of those wrongly condemed to death for a crime they didn't commit do to an over-zealous prosecuting attorney(hiding/ignoring evidence) to further his/her political career and/or a poor legal team defending the accused. Sorry, but my position is it's better to have the guilty spend the rest of their lives in prison so those that were commited wrongly actually have a chance to be set free. They can not harm the public from behind bars.
You would agree that executing someone for a crime that they did not commit would be the cruelest punishment a civilized society can do to one of its own, no?

easymo · « **Reply #66 on:** October 27, 2002, 01:07:18 PM »

Laz. You left out the possibility of them escaping, and going on a killing spree. People escape, with depressing regularity, here in Texas.

SaburoS · « **Reply #67 on:** October 27, 2002, 01:16:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by easymo
Laz. You left out the possibility of them escaping, and going on a killing spree. People escape, with depressing regularity, here in Texas.

Perhaps the answer is fixing the prisons that are prone to prisoner escapes. Seems that if there are that many escapes condemed prisoners going on killing sprees as you say, them someone in charge is kinda stupid for not fixing the problem, no?
BTW, just how many escapes are you talking about of prisoners that were lifers and how many killing sprees were there?

lazs2 · « **Reply #68 on:** October 27, 2002, 01:24:41 PM »

yep... I believe that the only guarentee is the death penalty. I would rather execute a couple of criminals that may be not guilty of the particular crime they were convicted of than take the chance that the guilty ones get loose or are able to commit more murders. they do get loose and they do commit other murders... they do commit murders while they are in prison.. not to mention how bad they make it for the other prisoners.

life in prison is indeed torture for the majority of prisonesrs that are kept from the general population. glad to be able to clear that up for you erlkoing.
lazs

Maverick · « **Reply #69 on:** October 27, 2002, 02:14:05 PM »

The argument that the death penalty is not a deterant is specious. There hasd been no documented case of a killer put to death ever killing again. Pretty damn effective deterant as far as I can see. There are many cases of killers NOT put to death that did kill again. Once they are facing life in prison, what else can be done to these animals? Taking their TV away?

Maintaining these individuals in prison, whether on death row or in any other high security area is the same. It is a lost cost and will not be recovered. If the killer is using the appeals process to delay the execution they STILL have to be incarcerated. The only additional cost is the price of the attorney's on both sides. In the case of the prosecution they ared already budgeted. The defenders are an additional cost but price guidelines can be enacted. Once the death sentence is carried out there is no further cost for incarceration. Life in prison is and will continue to be a cost for as long as the convict is alive and breathing. That includes all medical costs as well. This can last for many decades given the health of the convict. In the case of the 17 year old we could be paying for his upkeep for 70 years or so.

bounder · « **Reply #70 on:** October 27, 2002, 07:18:38 PM »

Hmm Lazs2...

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
{snippety snip}. I would rather execute a couple of criminals that may be not guilty of the particular crime they were convicted of than take the chance that the guilty ones get loose or are able to commit more murders. {snippety snip}

It's a bit of a woolly statement, but I get the gist - a few innocents executed is an acceptable price to pay for an effective deterrent and final solution to criminals who kill people.

I take it you would still support this statement if you were the falsely accused.

Judge: Lazs2, you have been found guilty of murder in the first degree, for which the mandatory sentence is Death. Do you have anything to say.

Lazs2: Your Honour I am innocent, but this court has found me guilty. I submit that my death will serve the best interests of justice and society at large. Please take me to my place of execution immediately so that I can discharge my duty as a good and upright citizen.

easymo · « **Reply #71 on:** October 27, 2002, 07:31:05 PM »

I must be one of the few people that like things just the way they are. It takes on average, 14 years for a convict to be executed. This give the rare innocent convict ample chance to prove his innocence. More to the point. It allows the murderers to experience the joys of being locked up on death row for 14 years. Then they are executed. The best of both worlds, IMO.

easymo · « **Reply #72 on:** October 27, 2002, 07:39:53 PM »

http://archive.nandotimes.com/noframes/story/0,2107,500294797-500468830-503163849-0,00.html

Of interest. Note the guy that was serving 99 years. And the cop that had to give his life for this stupidity.

I also advocate the execution of three time losers. The phrase "career criminal" would disappear IMO.

Thrawn · « **Reply #73 on:** October 27, 2002, 07:41:33 PM »

Unless you're an innocent man who ends up dead. Can't see that being the best of anyworlds.

Erlkonig · « **Reply #74 on:** October 27, 2002, 07:49:31 PM »

So let me get this straight: we should be content with killing off the innocent and letting the guilty run loose, otherwise the guilty will run loose?