believer wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:How is it acceptable to execute an innocent person? Even one, ever?

We need to keep the death penalty as an option and trust that our system of justice actually works. I like the track record.

That didn't even attempt to answer my question.

Mooney44Cards wrote: Personally I am completely against the death penalty because I do not believe humans have the right to decide who lives and who dies, even if that person broke that rule and murdered someone themselves, I believe we are just as bad as the murderers when we put people to death.

A man abducts an innocent young girl from her bedroom. Violates her sexually. She pleads for her life as he forces himself upon her and when he is through, chokes the life out of her watching her struggle to live as she suffers failing to get oxygen into her lungs. Then discards her lifeless body like some piece of trash in the local landfill. Robbing her parents of the opportunity to even view their child one last time.

A man is tried by a jury of his peers. He cannot afford to defend himself so we pay for his defense. We give him three square meals each day, a warm bed to sleep in, hot showers, reading material, to name a few. When found guilty we allow him numerous appeals at our expense. After roughly a decade of allowing him to plead his case and for his life, we decide it is enough. We allow him an opportunity to have a last meal. We allow him an opportunity to get right with his God. We allow any relative to have a final visit and say goodbye. We allow him an opportunity to say last words. We grant him a painless death. We allow him to have a proper burial.

We are really as bad as the murders? I respect your opposition to the death penalty, but your statement (bold) is simply wrong.

Unequivocally against it. We don't have the right to decide life and death.

majorspark wrote:

Mooney44Cards wrote: Personally I am completely against the death penalty because I do not believe humans have the right to decide who lives and who dies, even if that person broke that rule and murdered someone themselves, I believe we are just as bad as the murderers when we put people to death.

A man abducts an innocent young girl from her bedroom. Violates her sexually. She pleads for her life as he forces himself upon her and when he is through, chokes the life out of her watching her struggle to live as she suffers failing to get oxygen into her lungs. Then discards her lifeless body like some piece of trash in the local landfill. Robbing her parents of the opportunity to even view their child one last time.

A man is tried by a jury of his peers. He cannot afford to defend himself so we pay for his defense. We give him three square meals each day, a warm bed to sleep in, hot showers, reading material, to name a few. When found guilty we allow him numerous appeals at our expense. After roughly a decade of allowing him to plead his case and for his life, we decide it is enough. We allow him an opportunity to have a last meal. We allow him an opportunity to get right with his God. We allow any relative to have a final visit and say goodbye. We allow him an opportunity to say last words. We grant him a painless death. We allow him to have a proper burial.

We are really as bad as the murders? I respect your opposition to the death penalty, but your statement (bold) is simply wrong.

+1

I Wear Pants wrote:That didn't even attempt to answer my question.

You imply that our system of justice possibly could indict, convict, and execute an innocent human being. I assert that while it's a possibility (a remote one by the way), I believe in and trust our criminal justice system to take great pains to protect the innocent and fully prosecute the guilty.

While the "jury's out" for some on whether or not capital punishment is an effective deterrent to major criminal acts (particularly murder) I see no need to feed, clothe, and provide free medical care at taxpayer expense to those who are convicted of society's most heinous and despicable crimes.

Why punish the taxpayer to sustain human vermin?

Let em' fry. Is that clear enough for you?

Sage wrote: Unequivocally against it. We don't have the right to decide life and death.

Abortionists think we do.

fish82 wrote: For it. Cook 'em up....over easy.

You want ketchup with that? haha
.............


I'm for it. And for the record, I have no problems with the new cocktail injection. If it works for them, it works for me.

CenterBHSFan wrote:

fish82 wrote: For it. Cook 'em up....over easy.

You want ketchup with that? haha
.............


I'm for it. And for the record, I have no problems with the new cocktail injection. If it works for them, it works for me.

DrJ tells me that the cocktail is the exact same as "euthasol" which has been the veterinarian standard for years

^^ Yeah, she put some links up a week or so ago and I read them and then asked her some questions about them.

All in all, I think it makes sense. As far as human compassion (for what it's worth in this scenario) goes, you can't get much better, I don't think.

believer wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:How is it acceptable to execute an innocent person? Even one, ever?

We need to keep the death penalty as an option and trust that our system of justice actually works. I like the track record.

This times 1,000

When it's an option, lots of things can be "negotiated" that might be off the table, otherwise. All of those usually help families of victims in some way.

That's the main reason I like it on the books, whether it's used very much or not. Even if only used in the most egregious cases, it's better to have it available than not.

Kenneth Biros was executed earlier today as a result of his conviction for murdering Tami Engstrom of Hubbard, Ohio in 1991. The following is part of an article I read earlier this week. It's very graphic.









"...Kenneth spared no effort in disposing of her body in grisly fashion. Her head and right breast were hacked off. Her naked torso had been eviscerated, the anus, rectum, bowels, bladder, and sex organs removed as well. Later investigators discovered Tami's intestines, black leather coat, and shoe in a swampy area near a set of railroad tracks Biros had led them to. Tami's blood was all over the gravel and the tracks themselves. Most of the rest of her was discovered in the other dumping area (some parts of her were found in Ohio, some in Pennsylvania), part of her liver was discovered in the trunk of his car. The coroner determined that she suffered 91 injuries and stab wounds before she died, and five more after death."


She was a 22 year old married mother of one.

I think the death penalty is very appropriate here.

For the most heinous crimes, I am a huge supporter of the death penalty. There are simply some people that cannot be rehabilitated and deserve the ultimate punishment.

I grew up with a parent that worked at SOCF and was involved in the execution process, so I know the arguments, but also the type of people that are executed.

For it and should be quicker. No more waiting 10+ years.

believer wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:How is it acceptable to execute an innocent person? Even one, ever?

We need to keep the death penalty as an option and trust that our system of justice actually works. I like the track record.

It has been proven that it doesn't work many times. There have been over a hundred released from death row. Imagine how many innocent have died at the hands of our system of "justice."

I am against the death penalty for this reason. Not because I care about the guilty.

believer wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:That didn't even attempt to answer my question.

You imply that our system of justice possibly could indict, convict, and execute an innocent human being. I assert that while it's a possibility (a remote one by the way), I believe in and trust our criminal justice system to take great pains to protect the innocent and fully prosecute the guilty.

While the "jury's out" for some on whether or not capital punishment is an effective deterrent to major criminal acts (particularly murder) I see no need to feed, clothe, and provide free medical care at taxpayer expense to those who are convicted of society's most heinous and despicable crimes.

Why punish the taxpayer to sustain human vermin?

Let em' fry. Is that clear enough for you?

" For the states which employ the death penalty, this luxury comes at a high price. In Texas, a death penalty case costs taxpayers an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years.(3) In Florida, each execution is costing the state $3.2 million.(4) In financially strapped California, one report estimated that the state could save $90 million each year by abolishing capital punishment.(5) The New York Department of Correctional Services estimated that implementing the death penalty would cost the state about $118 million annually.(6)"

Taken from here.

This site also has a ton of information and statistics on the financial and social effectiveness of the death penalty. I can't be arsed to click on ever source they cite but it looks pretty legit.

I Wear Pants wrote:

fan_from_texas wrote: For it, but I don't care that much. I don't see any good arguments to get rid of it, so why not keep it?

How is it acceptable to execute an innocent person? Even one, ever?

How is it acceptable to lock up an innocent person? Even one, ever?

It's tragic when innocents are executed. It very rarely happens, and I don't think the occasional mistake means that we should eliminate the punishment entirely.

(I realize that the argument on the other side of this is that executing someone is not reversible, while imprisoning them wrongly is. I don't buy that--wrongfully imprisoning someone isn't nearly as bad, but it's still not something that can ever be undone. I don't think that justifies not imprisoning people).

fan_from_texas wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:

fan_from_texas wrote: For it, but I don't care that much. I don't see any good arguments to get rid of it, so why not keep it?

How is it acceptable to execute an innocent person? Even one, ever?

How is it acceptable to lock up an innocent person? Even one, ever?

It's tragic when innocents are executed. It very rarely happens, and I don't think the occasional mistake means that we should eliminate the punishment entirely.

(I realize that the argument on the other side of this is that executing someone is not reversible, while imprisoning them wrongly is. I don't buy that--wrongfully imprisoning someone isn't nearly as bad, but it's still not something that can ever be undone. I don't think that justifies not imprisoning people).

So if you had to choose, would you choose being wrongfully executed or being in prison for a while, lets say 12 years or something, and then they realize that you didn't do whatever and are released? Your name is expunged, your family and friends no longer necessarily hate you, you have a chance at a life. Or you know, you could be dead.

I Wear Pants wrote:So if you had to choose, would you choose being wrongfully executed or being in prison for a while, lets say 12 years or something, and then they realize that you didn't do whatever and are released? Your name is expunged, your family and friends no longer necessarily hate you, you have a chance at a life. Or you know, you could be dead.

I think anyone would choose to be wrongfully in prison, of course. Is that a serious question? What does that prove? Similarly, I'd rather not be in prison at all than wrongfully in prison for 12 years. Does that mean we shouldn't lock people up because, if we made a mistake, there's some alternative they'd rather have?

I'm not in favor of executing people left and right. I think it should be rather sparingly applied. I don't think it's much of a deterrence, nor do I think it saves money. I do, however, believe that there are certain actions people can take that demonstrates that they are not worthy of remaining part of human society; by their actions, they can overwhelmingly demonstrate that they intend to forfeit their right to be treated as a person. In that case, I think it's only humane to honor their wishes and execute them.

eersandbeers wrote:

There have been over a hundred released from death row.

136 in 36 years
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row

fan_from_texas wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: I'm not in favor of executing people left and right. I think it should be rather sparingly applied. I don't think it's much of a deterrence, nor do I think it saves money. I do, however, believe that there are certain actions people can take that demonstrates that they are not worthy of remaining part of human society; by their actions, they can overwhelmingly demonstrate that they intend to forfeit their right to be treated as a person. In that case, I think it's only humane to honor their wishes and execute them.

So why do we honor their wishes at the detriment to the rest of us? It costs us substantially more money to execute them than to lock them up forever.

Another thing, I'd say that right now the death penalty is pretty sparingly applied and yet there are still cases where the person executed is later exonerated or where they are realized to be innocent on death row (and how many similar cases do we miss? 1, 10, 50?). There isn't a benefit to execution. You might say that the victims family receives some benefit in the form of vengeance but I think that's neither a psychologically healthy remedy for their grief nor does it conform with what most American's ideals.

I Wear Pants wrote: " For the states which employ the death penalty, this luxury comes at a high price. In Texas, a death penalty case costs taxpayers an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years.(3) In Florida, each execution is costing the state $3.2 million.(4) In financially strapped California, one report estimated that the state could save $90 million each year by abolishing capital punishment.(5) The New York Department of Correctional Services estimated that implementing the death penalty would cost the state about $118 million annually.(6)"

Taken from here.

The reason the cost is so high is because of the appeals process. Many times the state is paying for the defendant as well as prosecuting the case. If money is the issue as you argue, then once sentence is pronounced we could simply take the guilty and immediately execute them for a fraction of the cost of incarceration

Just because the death penalty is overused does not mean we should eliminate it. It should be reformed and streamlined to be used on only those most heinous crimes where guilt is sure.

Gardens35 wrote: Kenneth Biros was executed earlier today as a result of his conviction for murdering Tami Engstrom of Hubbard, Ohio in 1991. The following is part of an article I read earlier this week. It's very graphic.

"...Kenneth spared no effort in disposing of her body in grisly fashion. Her head and right breast were hacked off. Her naked torso had been eviscerated, the anus, rectum, bowels, bladder, and sex organs removed as well. Later investigators discovered Tami's intestines, black leather coat, and shoe in a swampy area near a set of railroad tracks Biros had led them to. Tami's blood was all over the gravel and the tracks themselves. Most of the rest of her was discovered in the other dumping area (some parts of her were found in Ohio, some in Pennsylvania), part of her liver was discovered in the trunk of his car. The coroner determined that she suffered 91 injuries and stab wounds before she died, and five more after death."

She was a 22 year old married mother of one.

I think the death penalty is very appropriate here.

Case in point. This man Biros did not dispute his guilt. He led police to locations of body parts only known to the muderer. The question of guilt was never an issue in this case. There is no way it should have taken 18yrs to execute this guy.

Against it.

It is not for us to determine when life begins and ends.

Re exoneration of innocents, it's important to note the difference betwen legally innocent and factually innocent. Many of the exonerated are found not guilty based on what many would be a technicality. While I'm not arguing for getting rid of those technicalities (I think they play an impprtant role in keeping the police honest), it's not the same as being actually innocent. That's a much smaller subset.

how can you be pro death penalty and anti abortion? you can't be for killing people in one respect and against it in another...even if the baby hasn't done anything wrong and the murderer killed someone...who are you to say who lives and dies?