US Committed Murder Tod...I Mean Carried Out the Death Penalty

[Mr Slugger]

As I've said in other posts, if a convicted murderer can be proven without a shadow of a doubt to have committed murder, don't even waste the time, energy, or resources to take them to prison. Take them out back and put a bullet in their head or string them up as soon as the sentence is passed.

And to this note. We had a guy around here about six months ago murdered his family. The cops walked into a blood soaked house with dead people on the floor to the sight of the guy slitting his sister throat. The cops put a bullet in his head. (Mainly to help save the girl) But when situations like this happen I'm perfectly ok with the cops killing them. Saves us money putting that person through the justice system.

But a perfect example. In our state there's no death penalty. 30 years ago he admitted to killing in 80 year old grandmother. Stabbed her to death and then shot her. Drank her blood, and then burned the body. Now of course it's because he's a 700 year old vampire. So he wasn't all there, at the time. But well he's a changed man now of course. Doesn't matter than only a couple of years ago he tried to blood suck a prison guard. Luckily he just got denied parole for the second time. But I mean at some point he has a chance of getting out, and if he's 25 years later still trying his vampire thing on prison guards I would have to say that this guy should really never get out period, but seeing he can go up for parole he's always got a chance at getting out.

I'm not saying he deserved to be executed, but it's an example of a killer who even years later still exhibits signs of being a killer and yet has the chance at some point of getting out.

You know maybe if the rules were changed that a person like him doing what he did would revoke his possibility of parole. Or life with no chance of parole included spending the rest of their life in a straight jacket, mouth guard, and chained to the wall in a 3x3 cell for the rest of their life. (and really for the rest of their life) And I think in the future I think I'd be ok if they had some kind of cryo sleep where they just put them into some kind of coma, then stored them in some kind of crypt system, and if they did the crime then they'll die of old age without even knowing it. If they weren't guilt and they find out later on then they wake them and let them out.

But I'm sure that people would complain about those methods of dealing with them too.

[jackfaire]

Honestly I don't think I would mind Cryo sleep so much because theoretically it freeze their aging and thus if it came out they were innocent then they would have lost the same amount of time and such with their family but they would still have plenty of life ahead of them.

[Mr Slugger]

Honestly I don't think I would mind Cryo sleep so much because theoretically it freeze their aging and thus if it came out they were innocent then they would have lost the same amount of time and such with their family but they would still have plenty of life ahead of them.

Theoretically it either stops or slows it, or just keeps them asleep. Depending on the scifi author But I wouldn't want them to just be frozen because then eventually we could have huge buildings of frozen murders. Like I said more of a coma where they age normally, just never wake up. However you might be able to talk me into agreeing on say a 25 year freeze time to make sure there's no reversal in the judgement.

[BroomJockey]

And to this note. We had a guy around here about six months ago murdered his family. The cops walked into a blood soaked house with dead people on the floor to the sight of the guy slitting his sister throat. The cops put a bullet in his head.

That's not the death penalty, that's proper defence of a human life. If they'd come in afterwards, then the cops would be guilty of murder, had they done that.

But I mean at some point he has a chance of getting out, and if he's 25 years later still trying his vampire thing on prison guards I would have to say that this guy should really never get out period, but seeing he can go up for parole he's always got a chance at getting out.

Like I said. Parole reform. High-risk reoffenders should not get parole, etc. Parole should only be for those with either extenuating circumstances, or little-to-no risk of reoffending.

[DesignFox]

I haven't poked around the internet, because I tend to be very nightmare prone, but if someone can show me where the courts convicted a serial killer, gave him the death penalty, and it turned out someone ELSE was the serial killer, maybe...and it's a very slim maybe...I'd have second thoughts.

But as it stands, I tend to think that those wrongly convicted were NOT in the cases of mass murders/rapes. They were generally in the case of a one time offense and got stuck in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I mean, I find it hard to believe that some guy or woman can be tied to 15 murders incorrectly. "Woops! Our bad!" For multiple victims in multiple situations? I highly doubt it.

Those are the people we execute.

Want nightmares? Look up the Phoenix strangler. That scumbag is still alive and well in South Africa, where they don't have the death penalty.

Sorry. Fuck that. Put that SOB to sleep. That is one nasty individual. And what's so awesome about him, is he really doesn't see anything wrong with what he did. He just sorta, snapped...and dozens of young women were raped, tortured and strangled to death. Left out in the sugar cane fields because they do routine control burnings, and he hoped to get rid of the bodies that way. So, can't even tell me he's too crazy to know what he's doing. Crazy he may be. But he knew enough to try and not get caught. Like most serial offenders, they caught him because he got obsessed and careless.

Those people need to be executed. I wouldn't expose those types of prisoners to one another, let alone leave even the slimmest chance that they will get back out into society.

I am probably going to lose a lot of sleep over these examples.

[Greenday]

It also sets an example for would be future murderers that change their minds as a result of it.

So what about every study on this saying that as a deterrent, the death penalty is worthless?

[linguist]

I haven't poked around the internet, because I tend to be very nightmare prone, but if someone can show me where the courts convicted a serial killer, gave him the death penalty, and it turned out someone ELSE was the serial killer, maybe...and it's a very slim maybe...I'd have second thoughts.
.

not a serial killer, but a multiple murderer (convicted of killing his three children in 1992), look up the case of cameron todd willingham. convicted, executed in 2004, then proven innocent this year by independent review of his case by multiple experts. even if (and this is a big if) he's the only person who's ever been executed while innocent, that's one too many.

[DesignFox]

While still a horrible story, linguist, the situation doesn't seem to coincide with say, a serial killer. Multiple murder yes, and until I read the case details, I'm assuming this was one crime scene.

I will look into it when I get off of work. What a terrible situation.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Parole should only be for those with either extenuating circumstances, or little-to-no risk of reoffending.

Well, shoulda, woulda, coulda. How it should be isn't not how it often is.

So what about every study on this saying that as a deterrent, the death penalty is worthless?

How can you call a 100 percent no chance of a repeat offense worthless? That guy won't even get in trouble for jaywalking after that.

[Fashion Lad!]

Well, shoulda, woulda, coulda. How it should be isn't not how it often is.

With that statement, you can nullify just about any argument on this matter. Awesome.

How can you call a 100 percent no chance of a repeat offense worthless? That guy won't even get in trouble for jaywalking after that.

Let me get this straight. Even if it meant one innocent person being executed, you would keep the death penalty in favor of multiple life sentences without chances of parole? In order to save someone, you're willing to possibly sacrifice an innocent person's life?

This is not good company. Countries with 25 or more executions: Iraq (29), Iran (265), Pakistan (29), Saudi Arabia (156), USA (42).

We're 3rd! That is not something I'm proud of and it's not a race I want to compete it.

[BroomJockey]

How can you call a 100 percent no chance of a repeat offense worthless? That guy won't even get in trouble for jaywalking after that.

If you take his post in context, as it should be, you'd note he was replying to CH saying it acts as a deterrent for future killers, and it doesn't. Neither of them mentioned the current offender. Reply to posts as they are, not as you'd like to address them. After all, "coulda shoulda woulda."

One more argument for anyone saying "Well, the death penalty is legal, so that's okay." Slavery was legal. Not letting homosexuals marry IS legal. Not letting women vote was legal. So just because something is currently legal does not automatically make it ethical.

I find it interesting how so many people cannot fathom the thinking of people against gay marriage, shouting that it's immoral, and those people should change their way of thinking, gays are people too, and deserve rights, and then turn around and support the most barbaric – nay, Neanderthalic – of punishments available to humankind. To paraphrase Charles Babbage, I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a dichotomy of opinion. To consider oneself so forward in one area, but be so backwards in another.

[blas87]

When a person has taken a victim (or victims) and done something very barbaric and Neanderthalish, they are no longer a person with feelings, emotions, and rights to me anymore.

I do not find myself a hypocrite at all. Solid bet that most of the gays who are trying so desperately to get married are not fucking murderers!!!!

Everyone is a person with feelings, emotions and rights, don't get me wrong. But in my opinion, when you do something that is just so disgustingly un-human and vicious and especially when done in a matter with NO regret or emotion towards what was done.........that's not a person. That's a fucking monster.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Well, Broom, yeah, I agree that it does not deter future killers. I'm just saying it deters future murders.

Nobody ever thinks they will get caught. So I'm not sure that short of having people drawn and quartered in the public square, anything we do will deter future killers.

To answer FL's question...yeah. I think so. I say that tentatively, but yeah. Because you wouldn't be saving an innocent life. You'd just be swapping out which innocent life gets wasted. And I simply do not believe that we execute more innocent prisoners by accident than repeat offenders do on purpose.

[Pedersen]

Well, Broom, yeah, I agree that it does not deter future killers. I'm just saying it deters future murders.

And thus did my brain shut down.

[BroomJockey]

Well, Broom, yeah, I agree that it does not deter future killers. I'm just saying it deters future murders.

You know, except that it doesn't do that any more effectively than life incarceration.

And I find it interesting that you're willing to have the government kill innocents in your name, just because "someone else would have died anyways."