Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Yeager on December 17, 2007, 02:00:41 PM
-
Since the law in New Jersey now supports the life of child rapists/killers (and all your other murderous felons), all I can honestly say is that I hope this guy never escapes from one of your prisons to rape and murder any more children. You should have put this rabbid animal down.
Really pathetic New Jersey.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/17/death.penalty/index.html
-
The State of New Jersey, Corzine, and all the state senators should be held criminally and civilly responsible for any person's death at the hands of anyone who should have been executed.
-
Doesn't surprise me...its Jersey for crissake!
-
WTG Jersey.
-
Get a rope................ :aok
-
-New Jersey has not executed a prisoner since 1963.
The new legislation replaces the death penalty with life in prison without parole. The bill was introduced in November after a state commission concluded capital punishment was an ineffective deterrent to crime. -
NO CHIT!
:mad:
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
WTG Jersey.
Can you offer an explanation as to why keeping this specific man alive deserves a WTG?
-
Because killing diminishes us as a society.
Retribution is not civil and it should not be State sanctioned. I'm all for ensuring the safety of the public, but not at the expense of our humanity. The death penalty is not and never has been a deterrent. It is simply the act of a vengeful child. We are not children any longer and state sanctioned killing needs to stop.
-
We agree to disagree.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Because killing diminishes us as a society.
Retribution is not civil and it should not be State sanctioned. I'm all for ensuring the safety of the public, but not at the expense of our humanity. The death penalty is not and never has been a deterrent. It is simply the act of a vengeful child. We are not children any longer and state sanctioned killing needs to stop.
The ONLY purpose of justice is retribution. If there is no retribution, then there should be no punishments. At all.
The death penalty has not been a deterrent because it has never been used enough for even a gambler's chance of any murderer being executed.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
The ONLY purpose of justice is retribution. If there is no retribution, then there should be no punishments. At all.
The death penalty has not been a deterrent because it has never been used enough for even a gambler's chance of any murderer being executed.
So our current killing of people hasn't worked because we haven't killed enough people, or made it a streamlined process?
-
The only purpose of justice is justice. Not only for the victims, but for the society and the perpetrators of criminal activity. If you think justice is the equivilent of retribution you need a new dictionary.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The death penalty is not and never has been a deterrent. .
(http://pic4.picturetrail.com/VOL767/2726312/8668097/293521450.jpg)
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
The ONLY purpose of justice is retribution. If there is no retribution, then there should be no punishments. At all.
The death penalty has not been a deterrent because it has never been used enough for even a gambler's chance of any murderer being executed.
What about lesser punishments as deterrent to lesser crimes? Or is all state-sanctioned punishment purely retributive?
MT... I can't believe it, but I actually agree with you. As much as I personally desire the death of individuals such as this guy, I can't help but think that our government should not be given the authority to kill. The fact that this practice puts us in league with some pretty barbaric nations is a distant second to my dread of living in a place where detached, disinterested professionals have the final say in questions of life and death.
frankly, I think I'd prefer vigilante justice.
-
You have it so completely wrong MT. I am compelled to respect your opinion but by God it makes no sense to me whatsoever.
A thinking stalking animal that destroys our children with such brutal action surely has no rightful place on this earth, yet you want to preserve the life of such an animal, to serve some higher moral calling.
In cases of pre-meditated murder of innocent and defensless children there should be no safe harbor anywhere on this planet. Those animals must be destroyed.
-
REGIONAL MURDER RATES, 2001 - 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MURDER RATES PER 100,000 PEOPLE
REGION 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 EXECUTIONS SINCE 1976
South 6.8 6.6 6.6 6.9 6.8 6.7 901
West 5.6 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.5 67
Midwest 5.0 4.9 4.7 4.9 5.1 5.3 127
Northeast 4.5 4.4 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.2 4
-
I never have figured out how to post a stupid chart.
-
Agreed. I'm glad I live on the OTHER side of the river so my tax money doesn't go to pay the salaries of the the "leaders" of Jersey.
Besides, it smells worse on their side than ours, and I'm allowed to pump my own gas here.
-
Personally I'm not against the Death Penalty, but IMO it don't think having a Death Penalty stops a crime. If someone is so screwed up in the head, that they would do that. Well I hardly think he was very worried about if he would get fried or not when caught.
Texas at one point had the most inmates on Death Row than any other state. Hell George Bush set the record for most executions as a governor. One thing is still certian, violent crimes were and still are committed in Texas.
With that said, I'm for the death penalty for violent crimes which result in another death, assuming the accused gets a proper trial and has access to DNA testing if it will help clear him. If the state wont pay for DNA testing if needed then IMO life should be the rule.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
REGIONAL MURDER RATES, 2001 - 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MURDER RATES PER 100,000 PEOPLE
REGION 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 EXECUTIONS SINCE 1976
South 6.8 6.6 6.6 6.9 6.8 6.7 901
West 5.6 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.5 67
Midwest 5.0 4.9 4.7 4.9 5.1 5.3 127
Northeast 4.5 4.4 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.2 4
A year or two back I calculated that the rate at which murderers receive the death penalty is something like 0.01%. If you had a 1/10,000 chance (near lottery odds) of receiving the death penalty after murdering someone (much less considering the amount of murderers who DON'T get caught), would it deter you from doing what you want to do?
-
It would seem by the numbers that some chance of a death penalty is less of a deterrent than no chance of the death penalty.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
The ONLY purpose of justice is retribution.
If it means killing innocent people, then it isn't about retribution, but the illusion of retribution.
And amazingly the only people that need such an illusion to feel safe, or that society is "working", are ignorant retards.
-
Deterrent or not, to me the punishment should fit the crime.
The punishment of death, more than fits this particular crime.
I would feel absolutely no remorse as the exocutioner of this individual.
Does that make me barbaric? To some yes, to some no.
What irks me almost as much as his punishment being lessoned, is the fact that this crime took place 10 years ago.
I'm not a lawyer, so i'd like to know how many appeals is a death row inmate actually allowed?
-
Twenty years ago we had a convicted rapist escape from state prison. He immediately went to the home of his victim (who had testified against him)and brutally raped and murdered the rape victim. He also brutally raped and murdered a neighbor lady unfortunate enough to be visiting at the time of the attack. He then went on and brutally raped and murdered the young daughter of the rape victim. All three savagely raped, beaten and stabbed to death. This SOB was hanged and has since not commited any more crimes. Permanent solution.
It is said if you execute 100 condemned men, one of them is probably innocent and this justifies not executing any of the 100 men. But if one uses that logic then the state should not sentence 100 guilty men to prison for life because one of them is probably innocent.
The state should not sentence any person for any wrong doing because somewhere along the line an innocent person will be charged. Its ignorant logic. Liberal logic at its worst.
If you have a guilty person who commited a most atrocious murderous act, and you know it without doubt, Take that individual to the gallows and execute them. Permanetly remove them from ever being able to harm anyone ever again.
-
ted bundy will never rape and kill another women, he made the mistake of raping and killing in Florida, he got a choice of lethal injection or "old sparky".
-
Ted Bundy made a conscious choice to KILL in Florida because they had the death penalty. He wanted to die. The families of Ted's final victims can thank the death penalty in their state for the loss of their loved ones.... how's that for twisted logic?
Almost as silly as saying we shouldn't send people to jail for life cause they might be innocent. Difference being of course that they can be freed if found innocent, they can't be brought back to life if executed.
-
The article quoted an official who stated the idea was to avoid executing the innocent. A mention was made assuming 1% may be mistakenly convicted. Granted the goof that's gotten a "reprieve" is involved in a case that received enough attention that we all feel safe in ratifying his conviction but I gotta tell you, I think the numbers are way higher.
I completely agree with the concept of capitol punishment but I have no faith in the justice system's ability or desire to adequately prosecute the guilty. There's so much corruption in the criminal justice community that you can't even trust their time cards much less their investigative practices.
Far too many people are exonerated for us to have faith in the infallibility of the courts. Unfortunately we never seem to see the officials responsible for the travesties own up to their "mistakes". It's always the news organizations or some kind of "Freedom Project".
Unfortunately it's the liberals that seem to be doing the heavy lifting when it comes to keeping the judiciary "honest". That kinda sucks.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Ted Bundy made a conscious choice to KILL in Florida because they had the death penalty.
whoa, stop the spinning, I'm getting dizzy.
-
using that flawed logic might as well send everyone down to gitmo. we can always find them innocent later :rolleyes:
You defend the lives of child murderers.
-
Originally posted by Thruster
The article quoted an official who stated the idea was to avoid executing the innocent. A mention was made assuming 1% may be mistakenly convicted. Granted the goof that's gotten a "reprieve" is involved in a case that received enough attention that we all feel safe in ratifying his conviction but I gotta tell you, I think the numbers are way higher.
I completely agree with the concept of capitol punishment but I have no faith in the justice system's ability or desire to adequately prosecute the guilty. There's so much corruption in the criminal justice community that you can't even trust their time cards much less their investigative practices.
Far too many people are exonerated for us to have faith in the infallibility of the courts. Unfortunately we never seem to see the officials responsible for the travesties own up to their "mistakes". It's always the news organizations or some kind of "Freedom Project".
Unfortunately it's the liberals that seem to be doing the heavy lifting when it comes to keeping the judiciary "honest". That kinda sucks.
FWIW, supposedly more than 23 innocents were mistakenly executed this century. The fact is, there is absolutely no evidence that the death penalty in this country has ever executed even ONE innocent in the past century. If you can provide hard core evidence that an innocent man or woman was executed mistakenly, then there are several lawyers awaiting this evidence so that they may sue the state on behalf of the victims families.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
using that flawed logic might as well send everyone down to gitmo. we can always find them innocent later :rolleyes:
You defend the lives of child murderers.
So killing a murderer for a feeling of revenge is more important than potentially killing an innocent?
-
You know what guys the death penalty has never been a deterent for murderous crime anyway. So really what difference does it make. Satisfying our own egos? Clearing out space in jails? How many people actually escape from prison......veeeeerrrrryyyy few. Don't get me wrong i like to see them killed myself, but really who is it helping?
-
Hate to say it ... but I think I am opposed to the state killing convicted murders also.
I think a much better solution would be to turn the perp over to the victoms survivors and let them decide if they choose to keep him alive, feed him, shelter him, provide all his support for the remander of his life ... or whatever other action they choose to take.
If they choose pliers and a blowtorch its none of our business ... we were not the injured party.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
You know what guys the death penalty has never been a deterent for murderous crime anyway. So really what difference does it make. Satisfying our own egos? Clearing out space in jails? How many people actually escape from prison......veeeeerrrrryyyy few. Don't get me wrong i like to see them killed myself, but really who is it helping?
Originally posted by Ripsnort
(http://pic4.picturetrail.com/VOL767/2726312/8668097/293521450.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
FWIW, supposedly more than 23 innocents were mistakenly executed this century. The fact is, there is absolutely no evidence that the death penalty in this country has ever executed even ONE innocent in the past century. If you can provide hard core evidence that an innocent man or woman was executed mistakenly, then there are several lawyers awaiting this evidence so that they may sue the state on behalf of the victims families.
Ugh Ripsnort i can recall a few people who were convicted here in Texas but later found innocent because dna evidence showed they were innocent. These crimes happened before dna testing was used. As i understand it dna evidence is pretty darn acurate since nobody has your same dna. How do you explain that?
-
Originally posted by MrBill
Hate to say it ... but I think I am opposed to the state killing convicted murders also.
I think a much better solution would be to turn the perp over to the victoms survivors and let them decide if they choose to keep him alive, feed him, shelter him, provide all his support for the remander of his life ... or whatever other action they choose to take.
If they choose pliers and a blowtorch its none of our business ... we were not the injured party.
Perhaps waterboarding. :)
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Ugh Ripsnort i can recall a few people who were convicted here in Texas but later found innocent because dna evidence showed they were innocent. These crimes happened before dna testing was used. As i understand it dna evidence is pretty darn acurate since nobody has your same dna. How do you explain that?
Are they dead? Re-read my post....
..there is absolutely no evidence that the death penalty in this country has ever executed even ONE innocent in the past century.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I never have figured out how to post a stupid chart.
That's cause Liberals are very smart.
-
hey check this indy: If someone rapes and murders a child, that person should be quickly tried, sentenced, and if found guilty put to death after one appeal taking days or weeks to be heard. Thats what I think....
I do not subscribe to the belief that 100 guilty child murderers should live so that a unproven hypothetical innoncet not be wrongly executed. I dont buy it.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Nice chart Ripsnort. That does not change the fact that a muderous killer has ever really had the death penalty cross his mind before commiting a crime. It just doesn't really ever stop people from doing anything.
-
We put down animals to protect society from their predation on it. In this case there is no valid reason not to also put this animal down. He has shown himself to be void of compassion or humanity. In order to see that no innocent person ever suffers from his predation again to would serve society better to remove him permanently from being able to ever hurt another person again.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Are they dead? Re-read my post....
I think if they were found proven inocent due to dna thats pretty darn close.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Nice chart Ripsnort. That does not change the fact that a muderous killer has ever really had the death penalty cross his mind before commiting a crime. It just doesn't really ever stop people from doing anything.
Perhaps, perhaps not. I'll leave that to the likes of pyschologists. I do agree with Yeager, the permanent solution is to dispose of the killer. That way you ensure that A) no break out of prison and harm again can occur....and B) Closure for the victims families. I personally think those two outweigh everything. :aok
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
I think if they were found proven inocent due to dna thats pretty darn close.
Then the legal system has run its course, and worked just like its supposed to.
What about executing only those with evidence suggesting positive DNA matches to the crime scene/victim? Do you agree with that?
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Nice chart Ripsnort. That does not change the fact that a muderous killer has ever really had the death penalty cross his mind before commiting a crime. It just doesn't really ever stop people from doing anything.
prove it, prove that a murder was not prevented because of the death penalty.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Perhaps, perhaps not. I'll leave that to the likes of pyschologists. I do agree with Yeager, the permanent solution is to dispose of the killer. That way you ensure that A) no break out of prison and harm again can occur....and B) Closure for the victims families. I personally think those two outweigh everything. :aok
Ripsnort they kill people so infrequently do you really think that has a major effect on the actual killers being released and the crimes commited. Again Ripsnort hardly anybody escapes from jail especially people on death row. I think they kill somewhere in the neighborhood of i think 16 to 30 or so killers here in Texas. Sometimes it's something like 2 or 3. That makes a huge difference i'm sure out of all the other murderous a$*holes out there. So the death penalty is effecting crime alot.
-
Murderers deserve to die quickly. Once they are convicted, for any society and victims to support such criminals, feeding and clothing and housing them for any length of time, let alone for the rest of their life, is absurd.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Then the legal system has run its course, and worked just like its supposed to.
What about executing only those with evidence suggesting positive DNA matches to the crime scene/victim? Do you agree with that?
Definately if the dna shows that a person was involved kill them. If not no.
And Ripsnort if you believe the justice system is infallible you've got to be really gullible. It's not perfect but it's the best we got.
-
How about we accomodate everyone here. The death penalty for murdering a conservative but no death penalty for murdering a liberal. Underage kids assume the political standing of their parents.
On second thought, how about no penalty at all for murdering a liberal. WIN/WIN! :p
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Ripsnort they kill people so infrequently do you really think that has a major effect on the actual killers being released and the crimes commited. Again Ripsnort hardly anybody escapes from jail especially people on death row. I think they kill somewhere in the neighborhood of i think 16 to 30 or so killers here in Texas. Sometimes it's something like 2 or 3. That makes a huge difference i'm sure out of all the other murderous a$*holes out there. So the death penalty is effecting crime alot.
Here is what you get when you don't settle for the more permanent solution for the problem:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/845211.stm
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1929235/posts
And some good reading of one of the more famous cases:
http://www.amazon.com/Freed-Kill-Story-Serial-Murderer/dp/0380715465
-
Originally posted by john9001
prove it, prove that a murder was not prevented because of the death penalty.
John prove to me that you pee standing up, you people and you prove it stuff.
Sure i'm sure the death penalty stopped a killer obviously. However would that guy have ever gotten out of jail in the first place probably not. His blank would still be in the joint, death penalty or not.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Here is what you get when you don't settle for the more permanent solution for the problem:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/845211.stm
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1929235/posts
And some good reading of one of the more famous cases:
http://www.amazon.com/Freed-Kill-Story-Serial-Murderer/dp/0380715465
Again Rip i am a proponent of the death penalty but playing devils advocate as i usually do to state a point. Your presentation of a few people getting off and commiting crimes and holding that up as major absolute evidence is not all that convincing. I can look past that and see, that out of the people on death row very few get out period. Let alone to kill again.
So your presentation of three cases is not very convincing. Okay lets say your "evidence" is representative of a larger number, which i'm sure it is. The death penalty is not a deterent to the thousands of murders that occur every year. The few cases you showed is absolute evidence against that? Once again i say kill em all, at least those people you showed would still be alive. But you gotta admit that a psycopath doesn't give a s*it about the death penalty and the few people that are actually executed doesn't make a huge difference.
-
Originally posted by john9001
prove it, prove that a murder was not prevented because of the death penalty.
Oh and John the murder wasn't prevented it was just avenged, the murder has already happened. Predicting one that might happen in the future is in truth just that...predicting. Again i don't mind the death penalty, i'm just saying though.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Doesn't surprise me...its Jersey for crissake!
Doesnt surprise me either the the government here goes against the will of the people.
The death penalty was repealed in spite of the majority of the people wanting to keep it for serial killers and murderers of children.
We havent executed anyone since 1963.
In spite of people voting back in the death penalty.
you want to live in a state where the government And John (the emperor) Corzine in particular doesnt give a damn about the people want.
Move to Jersey
-
Originally posted by Speed55
-New Jersey has not executed a prisoner since 1963.
The new legislation replaces the death penalty with life in prison without parole. The bill was introduced in November after a state commission concluded capital punishment was an ineffective deterrent to crime. -
NO CHIT!
:mad:
Yea a commision nobody but them knew anything about.
This entire matter was only brought to the publics attention within the last week.
-
Originally posted by VonMessa
Agreed. I'm glad I live on the OTHER side of the river so my tax money doesn't go to pay the salaries of the the "leaders" of Jersey.
Besides, it smells worse on their side than ours, and I'm allowed to pump my own gas here.
Allowed. or forced to?
Personally I dont at all mind having gas pumped for me. particularly when its cold or raining out.
Trust me. it stinks just as bad on your side of the river as ours.
You just dont notice it because your used to the smell LOL
-
<
Authorities searched over the weekend for Jose Espinosa, who was awaiting sentencing for manslaughter, and Otis Blunt, who was facing robbery and other charges. They also launched a review of jail security>>
"Jose Espinosa, who was awaiting sentencing for manslaughter,"
yes murderers never get out of jail, i hope the people in NJ feel safer now.
-
The cost of housing an inamte in NJ is currently about $31,973 a year.
After 20 years.not taking infalton into account it will cost $639,460
thats just for one prisoner.
seems like a big waste of money to me for somone who will never again see the light of day as a free person.
-
costs waaaaayyy more to put them on death row. i'm for no death penalty and a good reason is the costs.
what about people who were put to death that didn't get to prove their innocence with dna evidence? also, every human system is prone to failure at some point no matter how hard we try, so why risk killing an innocent even if it is minute?
went to a good debate a few years ago on campus. the man for the death penalty gave a lot of reasons and arguments. the man against made the argument that people get no real closure or satisfaction from another death, the pro-death penalty man tried to say they did. in the end turns out the guy against had seen his sisters murderer put to death and it never made him feel any better or bring closure to his loss.
Ripsnort: the chart is flawed in that it tries to give the only reason for increased murders to the number of convicts put to death. LOTS of reasons caused the increases in murder and crime rates and the decrease in executions isn't very strongly statistically linked
-
Originally posted by bongaroo
costs waaaaayyy more to put them on death row. i'm for no death penalty and a good reason is the costs.
what about people who were put to death that didn't get to prove their innocence with dna evidence? also, every human system is prone to failure at some point no matter how hard we try, so why risk killing an innocent even if it is minute?
went to a good debate a few years ago on campus. the man for the death penalty gave a lot of reasons and arguments. the man against made the argument that people get no real closure or satisfaction from another death, the pro-death penalty man tried to say they did. in the end turns out the guy against had seen his sisters murderer put to death and it never made him feel any better or bring closure to his loss.
Ripsnort: the chart is flawed in that it tries to give the only reason for increased murders to the number of convicts put to death. LOTS of reasons caused the increases in murder and crime rates and the decrease in executions isn't very strongly statistically linked
I am for the death penalty where the convicteds guilt is without question.
the case would have to be more then circumstantial.
And life without parole for those whom there might be a minute chance of proving innocence.
My way. for example.
Jeffery Dahmer would have been executed
Scott Peterson would not
-
It costs so much to execute convicted murderers because our justice (sic) system goes to such extraordinary lengths to protect them. No more 15 year appeals of appealed appeals! Thats where our hundreds of thousands of dollars gets wasted.
When a murderer is put to death then NO MORE VICTIMS have to die at the hands of that murderer. That includes people already in prison for offenses far less damning than murder. People in prison deserve to be protected from the murderers among them. No better way than to execute the rabid animals at the first justified opportunity after the base appeal is heard and denied.
It is disturbing to me that so many liberal minded people are so entrenched when it comes to defending the the most violent and destructive humans among us.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Jeffery Dahmer would have been executed
he was executed, by fellow prisoners.
-
Originally posted by john9001
he was executed, by fellow prisoners.
I know this.
I was using it as an example of who would be executed by the state and who would serve a life sentance instead
-
If they want him to serve "life" in prison, send him straight to general population. Kid killers tend to have a limited life expectancy in there.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
It is disturbing to me that so many liberal minded people are so entrenched when it comes to defending the the most violent and destructive humans among us.
As a liberal i don't understand that myself. I try to be a true thinking open minded person. I'd like to see the guilty eliminated myself. You could argue the point that an innocent could be put to death, but in a way i think it's worth it to kill these people. Although i don't think it's an effective deterent. Maybe it brings closure to families but i don't know.
I think maybe God knew what he was talking about sometimes when he said no revenge, and that forgiveness works. I think ultimately those heal the heart more than anything else. On a philosophical sense i feel deep in my heart that another man should not kill another man and that it's not our place really. But my surface angry side says i'd like to kill them. It's hard being an imperfect living human being when there's so many pulls on what you feel is right. Maybe thats why we shouldn't make such a decision, because i feel each of us have these different sides and every person is not the same. There can only be one right answer, but i feel it's not my place to say whether a man should live or die sometimes, that decision makes me take pause and very uncomfortable.
-
I find it disturbing that an opposition to the death penalty is seen as a defense of the wicked. Are people really that simple minded?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
hey check this indy: If someone rapes and murders a child, that person should be quickly tried, sentenced, and if found guilty put to death after one appeal taking days or weeks to be heard. Thats what I think....
I do not subscribe to the belief that 100 guilty child murderers should live so that a unproven hypothetical innoncet not be wrongly executed. I dont buy it.
I don't have a problem with death penalty itself, but people make mistakes (not referencing the murderers, but the investigators themselves). HPD crime lab has already shown to be flawed.
Leroy Lewis received a 35-year sentence in a 1991 rape and murder after a Houston crime-lab analyst reported that biological evidence from the crime pointed to him.
Ronald Cantrell received a six-year sentence in a 2001 sexual assault after an analyst reported finding his DNA profile in evidence from the crime.
Lawrence Napper received a life sentence in a 2001 sexual assault after an analyst concluded that DNA profiling eliminated all other suspects.
The men are the faces of the business unfinished in the probe of the Houston Police Department crime lab.
In each case, new tests have discredited the lab's work, eliminating the men as contributors to the biological samples from the crimes or greatly reducing the statistical link between them and the evidence. Yet questions about the implications of those findings on their cases remain unresolved.
Rip already brought up "what about DNA evidence"? Reality shows us it's not close to perfect, at least not in my city.
You tried the emotional "you're defending child killers!" line, when that's not the case at all. Nobody here has said let them go unpunished. This isn't the evening news where emotional appeal sells advertising time.
Somebody else brought up the financial aspect of keeping people locked up. Now y'all tell me, with all the lawyers out there, how much is one wrong execution going to cost in a civil suit? I'm willing to bet it's more than keeping them locked up for 20 years. The costs of keeping them would even go down if we had a bit of reform in drug laws.
Simply put, there's more to lose than gain executing somebody.
-
What the death penalty does is put the poor sick ahole out of his misery and protect anyone in the future from becoming another one of his victims.
If it wasn't a deterrent then how would you explain the fact that almost without exception... every criminal fights the death penalty with everything he has. He thinks it fine to kill others but.. when it comes to his life.. well... life gets real precious then.
It should only be used in the most extreme cases and then only if we are damn sure. I would say that we are not doing it enough tho now..
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
If it wasn't a deterrent then how would you explain the fact that almost without exception... every criminal fights the death penalty with everything he has. He thinks it fine to kill others but.. when it comes to his life.. well... life gets real precious then.
lazs
Deterrent kinda means to deter. Like as in to keep something from happening. Sorta just the opposite of what you are using as a point of some kind.
Just trying to help.
-
but mt.. those guys are terrified... they are crapping bricks over the penalty... It would follow that some who are even less brave than them are "deterred" to the point that they simply don't put themselves in that spot.
To say that punishment is not deterrent is silly.. england is full of guns for instance. if the penalty was $5 for getting caught with one.. no one who wanted one would pay attention... if it was 10 years in prison... pretty much what it is.. even hardened criminals would pay attention... if it is death... then.... even more criminals would pay attention.
To say that the death penalty is no deterrent to anyone is to say that punishment and laws work only up to that point and at that point.. the rules no longer apply.. this is the real huge leap of faith the anti death penalty types take..
To say that 10 year sentences are more of a deterrent than a $5 fine but the death penalty is no deterrent at all.
lazs
-
If the death penalty is not a detterent then why have murders gone done in almost every state when they started permitting citizens to exercise their second amendment right to carry a concealed handgun? Perhaps death penalites like they had in NJ, that are never invoked, are no deterrent but the swift execution of that sentence by armed citizens seems to be a quite effective deterrent.
-
I believe that executions should be made public then I bet they would detere crime.
-
The numbers indicate that it is not a deterrent. sorry.
-
A man living in Maine stabbed his mother to death with more than 40 blows using a steak knife. He spent 15 years incarcerated by the state.
After release the man traveled to my state and within four months had murdered a recently wed young couple with execution style shots to the head.
Thanks to people in Maine who are against executing miscreant violent murderous human beings, two wonderful young people were viciously murdered in my state. Our county prosecutor has already stated he will seek the death penalty.
Two young people have been denied their lives and whats worse, their last moments on earth were tragically horrific. These deaths could have been avoided if Maine had dealt with this animal the way they should have, by executing him.
Execute violent murderers as quickly as possible.
And send death penalty opponents into the cells of these animals for some fun play and then give them time to relfect on their wrong headed views about execution.
The states should defend their citizens with proactive enforcement of the death penalty.
-
A man living in Maine stabbed his mother to death with more than 40 blows using a steak knife. He spent 15 years incarcerated by the state.
15 years for Murder 1? Really?
If you have a link I'd like to see it. I wonder if he was convicted of 2nd degree murder, or maybe even hospitalized? Either way his original crime would NOT be a capital offense and your post would be pointless. If he received a life without parole term your post would be pointless. Essentially your post makes about as much sense as pointing out that if the guy had died of a heart attack he wouldn't have killed again. Pointless.
-
See Rule #4
-
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/crime/story/209294.html
Taveras was convicted of manslaughter in the brutal stabbing death of his mother. Apparently stabbing another human being forty times with a steak knife does not rate as highly as murder in any degree, go figure.
In my book, a man stabs another human being to death in that manner, as Tavares did with his mother, should at a bare minimum, never see a free day for the rest of his life. I dont know what the hell rated it down to manslaughter but people who knew the guy pleaded with officials not to let him go. The judge overruled their objections and tavares went fourth and murdered again in brutal fashion furthering my belief in executions being used to prevent future murders.
He should have been executed for causing the brutal death of another human being (40 blows with a knife?......thats extenuating, come on!).
-
Hie second victims had not committed any crimes at all, yet he executed them.
-
Essentially your post makes about as much sense as pointing out that if the guy had died of a heart attack he wouldn't have killed again. Pointless.
====
Pointless? By executing a murderer we are eliminating that murderer from ever murdering again. I know it goes against your reasoning and you wont accept the fact that everytime a convicted killer kills again, that death could have been prevented by executing the murderer after his first murder. And oh yeah, a heart attack would have done the same thing but Im not going to use your rational and say we should let heart attacks be our primary defense against preventing murderers from murdering again.
Even as a liberal defense against executions, the heart attack defense is really lame :rolleyes:
-
Murderers kill people, therefore it's okay if the state does?
Wow, I can't wait to explain to my daughter how murderers should be our benchmark for morality...right up there with the terrorists that torture people. Aim for the moon, honey, aim for the moon!
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
(http://pic4.picturetrail.com/VOL767/2726312/8668097/293521450.jpg)
nice curve
I've one too :
(http://timbreposte.free.fr/mag-timbre/statistique.gif)
this bbs need an upgrade !
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
(http://pic4.picturetrail.com/VOL767/2726312/8668097/293521450.jpg)
Rip... what is "The Bureau of Criminal Justice" ? I can't find the source. I've found the Bureau of Justice, which is a Federal agency, but that's different than the bureau of criminal justice listed on the chart...
Just curious-
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Essentially your post makes about as much sense as pointing out that if the guy had died of a heart attack he wouldn't have killed again. Pointless.
====
Pointless? By executing a murderer we are eliminating that murderer from ever murdering again. I know it goes against your reasoning and you wont accept the fact that everytime a convicted killer kills again, that death could have been prevented by executing the murderer after his first murder. And oh yeah, a heart attack would have done the same thing but Im not going to use your rational and say we should let heart attacks be our primary defense against preventing murderers from murdering again.
Even as a liberal defense against executions, the heart attack defense is really lame :rolleyes:
Come on Yeager, you're smarter than that. I didn't give a "heart attack" defense of anything. It was a comparison to the pointlessness of your story. Are you saying that we should execute everyone who is convicted of manslaughter now? I realize the printed word can be inexact sometimes, but really? Heart attack defense? By attacking the "heart attack defense" you are in essence attacking your story as well... sheesh.
-
back to basics, just for the point of continuing the thread: we should execute people who under extenuating circumstances of cruelty murder others in cold blood during felonious behavior or to engage in sexual assaults, people who murder for pleasure, or people who murder children.
-
Still not a deterrent.
basically.
-
Murderers kill people, therefore it's okay if the state does?
====
In states where the death penalty is law the simple answer is yes.
I see it for what it is, the state acting in defense of its citizens. Murderers who are dead are no longer a threat.
-
I dont think you can deter murderers MT. I have never bought into the theory of deterrence by death with regards to singular vicious human beings commiting murder. They are more interested in the moment that they murder than of any consequence. Execution rids us all of the murderer and guarantees that any particular murderer will never murder again. To me thats worth the price.
-
sorry mt.. the numbers seem to indicate that it is a deterrent. The numbers really don't exist in big enough of a sampling to get a real firm yes or no but.. they do seem to indicate that the death penalty is a deterrent... they certainly don't indicate the other way.
one thing is certain.. don't even need a graph.. no one executed has ever committed another murder.
lazs
-
The reality is that killing someone as punishment really makes you no better than they are. Worse still, as often as not, execution is carried out in the most cold blooded and gruesome way.
It clearly isn't a deterrance. If it was there would be few murders in States where the killing of prisoners is allowed.
Many people are half savage barbarians to this day even in so called civilised countries. That trait should not be encouraged. Execution is simply revenge not punishment.
Certain murderers should never be released and held in conditions that remind them daily of the horror of their crime. 40 years of hell on earth is much better punishment than death.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
Certain murderers should never be released and held in conditions that remind them daily of the horror of their crime. 40 years of hell on earth is much better punishment than death.
Phhhfffftttttt. I don`t really cherish the thought of the costs per day to keep some vermin alive that doesn`t deserve to breathe that has wiped out someone`s life for no reason.
Whackem and stackem.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
The reality is that killing someone as punishment really makes you no better than they are. Worse still, as often as not, execution is carried out in the most cold blooded and gruesome way.
It clearly isn't a deterrance. If it was there would be few murders in States where the killing of prisoners is allowed.
Many people are half savage barbarians to this day even in so called civilised countries. That trait should not be encouraged. Execution is simply revenge not punishment.
Certain murderers should never be released and held in conditions that remind them daily of the horror of their crime. 40 years of hell on earth is much better punishment than death.
I think this topic was brought up a year or two ago. The way i see it, is that as soon as one of these animals kills, they lose all ties to the human race. The execution method nowadays is lethal injection. They lie on a nice comfy table, fall asleep, and then die.
I know a few people here in NY, where the only reason they're against the death penalty is because it's more like life with a million appeals.
People on death row, cost taxpayers alot more to house daily then regular inmates.
If a murderer has been proven without a shadow of doubt, caught red handed, or matched up with dna evidence, why is it such a problem for the system to make them face there punishment?
-
It clearly isn't a deterrance.
====
No executed murderer has ever killed another human being. Plenty of murderers have served their time and then been released from prison only to go back out into society and murder again. Dont you get that?
Put the rabbid dogs down.
-
See Rule #5
-
You oppose the death penalty for the right reasons MT, however, your opposition to it is still wrong, imo. There are simply some human beings who are so dangerous to the rest of us that as long as they are alive we are all threatened by them. All of us, our children, law enforcement...prison security, the judiciary. All of us, our society. To me such threats must be permanently terminated
-
Originally posted by Yeager
You oppose the death penalty for the right reasons MT, however, your opposition to it is still wrong, imo. There are simply some human beings who are so dangerous to the rest of us that as long as they are alive we are all threatened by them. All of us, our children, law enforcement...prison security, the judiciary. All of us, our society. To me such threats must be permanently terminated
i have been wanting to say something like that, I just could not find the right words.
-
We execute the condemned behind the closed doors of a prison with a few select witnesses. No video, no unauthorized photographs.
If we weren't ashamed of the death penalty, we would do it openly in public, maybe even televise it..
-
I think any of you who are split in to either the "all the scum must die!" and the "we must retain our morality!" groups have both missed point.
the real argument against the death penalty isnt morality.
What happens if the cops picked up the wrong guy?
He gets murdered.
The state commits murder, and the real criminal is out there thinking "w00t! I can get away with that again!"
You would support an overzealous state/govt?
what if the wrong guy they caught was you?
Now if it was a prison sentance and they realised theyd got the wrong dude, fair doos, you get some cash, an apology and a lift home. Otherwise....
"Sorry Ma'am, we appear to have accidently electrocuted your husband."
-
If we weren't ashamed of the death penalty, we would do it openly in public, maybe even televise it..
====
Interesting opinion. I tend to disagree with it however. I believe the condemned are executed in the current manner for various reasons, but I am certainly not aware of the full history of it.
I believe much of it is out of respect for both the relatives of the deceased victim and those of the soon to be deceased. Im sure there are lawful reasons to be considered. I know the last public execution in france (a head removal ceremony) turned into a fanatical expression of public debauchery sparked by a lunatic crowd of drunkards and general trouble makers. It was a pathetic and regrettable demonstration of a society not quite ready for prime time. Executions in france were outlawed as a result. Too bad, as I am confident that france, like any country of mass populations has a small number of people that do not deserve to be alive.
I like to think our society, even in pursuit of its most serious and regrettable acts of self defense, maintains a serious level of dignity towards all involved. I do not want to see public executions, but I have no problem allowing the public into an execution, like the public can go and be spectators in court, a highly controlled and sacred institution of our democracy. Sometimes this is done through a lottery system. I have no problem with that.
Besides the provision of a dignified death, I believe the condemned should be spared pain and suffering. this act of state sanctioned self defense must not be for vengence, this is simply to act in complete defense of the people from the horrific attacks of cold blooded murderers.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I know the last public execution in france (a head removal ceremony) turned into a fanatical expression of public debauchery sparked by a lunatic crowd of drunkards and general trouble makers. It was a pathetic and regrettable demonstration of a society not quite ready for prime time. Executions in france were outlawed as a result.
It`s a wonder, judging by that, that pro sports events haven`t also been outlawed.
;)
-
good point! straffo, comments?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Interesting opinion. I tend to disagree with it however. I believe the condemned are executed in the current manner for various reasons, but I am certainly not aware of the full history of it.
I believe much of it is out of respect for both the relatives of the deceased victim and those of the soon to be deceased. Im sure there are lawful reasons to be considered.
Court rulings. The gas chamber was ruled "cruel and unusual" by a federal court. I boils down to what people consider humane.
I think my problem with capital punishment is the same as MT's...
67% of capital convictions are eventually overturned, mainly on procedural grounds of incompetent legal counsel, police or prosecutors who suppressed evidence and judges who gave jurors the wrong instructions. Seven percent of those whose sentences were overturned between 1973 and 1995 have been acquitted. Ten percent were retried and re-sentenced to death. The remainder typically end up with lesser sentences, up to and including life imprisonment.
From Columbia Law School, Error Rates in Capital Cases 1973-1995. here (http://www2.law.columbia.edu/instructionalservices/liebman/index.html)
If the government can get it wrong, then they shouldn't be doing something that can't be undone.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
good point! straffo, comments?
Well you know the story about apple and orange ?
This chart and it's tittle let inattentive people make a correlation between execution and murder per capita.
But even this chart show ,it's not related ,just look at 1993 and compare to 1980
didn't understood your comment
Originally posted by Yeager
I know the last public execution in france (a head removal ceremony) turned into a fanatical expression of public debauchery sparked by a lunatic crowd of drunkards and general trouble makers. It was a pathetic and regrettable demonstration of a society not quite ready for prime time. Executions in france were outlawed as a result. Too bad, as I am confident that france, like any country of mass populations has a small number of people that do not deserve to be alive.
Public execution where stopped at the end of the 30's (from memory) the last one was the pinnacle of the debauchery as you say,but didn't lead to the end of death sentences.
Death sentence were outlawed in 1981 and now (since this year) our constitution prevent completely the death sentence.
-
Thanks straffo, I understand better what happened now.
I do agree that the american justice system is seriously broken and that justice is becoming increasingly difficult to deliver. Yet I do believe in principle that there are certain humans, just a few out of all of us, that are such terrible monsters that they need to be killed simply to protect everyone else.
-
some of you guys are getting pretty far afield here.
lets get some things straight.. we absolutely do kill millions of people all the time and that does not make us "as bad as the murderers" just as those societies who don't kill the killers are no more morally superior than those who do.
all societies kill for a variety of reasons.. we all kill men women and children by the thousands in war. we kill unborn babies.. not to get into the morality of that but.. we feel that it is "worth" it. we kill all the time.. we even allow doctors to kill in mercy killings..
Sooo we absolutely think that killing is fine. we don't say that if we allow any killing we are the same as the murderers...
same goes for capital punishment.. if it even deters one murderer.. if it prevents one murderer from committing another murder.. then it is a net plus. It is done for a reason at least as good as a war or an abortion.
lazs
-
I'm not sure your justice system is broken out is not in a good shape either.
As I see per the US television program I've access to, your society is more violent than our, why I don't really know , perhaps because guns are more available as in France perhaps for other reasons I can't imagine.
Perhaps the key is in education and a different repartition of the wealth,I don't know for sure, the only thing I know is : it's your problem and you have to solve it the fastest you can for your sibling.