A couple of stories over the weekend has me questioning the validity of thinning out the herd a little less discrimanately.

First; the little 11 y.o. girl in Florida who was buried alive in a garbage dump and was luckily found before expiring.

Second; a woman in Chicago who hired two Mexicans to steal an infant baby boy to dupe her boyfriend into thinking that she had recently given birth to their son, panics and dumps the helpless baby into a dumpster and again luckily, he was found and has been returned to his parents.

Why do we allow these sick turds to ever see another day when by their actions they have shown that they are not fit to live amongst us.

Many are calling for the abolition of the death penalty, and yet everyday we pick up the paper and see more horrofic acts perpetrated by the scum of the earth towards innocent people. I take exception to the theory that every one should be given a second chance and I would like to see the death penalty much more liberally applied, for there truly is evil amongst us.

My biggest beef with the death penalty is that it needs be a much faster process. Get it over within a year at the most. Bullets are cheap. An axe is also pretty cheap considering it's longevity. Matches are cheap, but gasoline isn't.

I still think the death penalty is too good for those who get it. Their lives should be a living hell. Shovel rocks 24/7 and then see them poured in front of them to shovel again (just like Sissyphus). Not fair to those like some friends of mine, who suffered the death penalty too young without committing any crimes at all.

I agree with ID....I don't want them around.

Good to see no bleading -heart liberals here! And although I agree with Saul (and all those that agree with me) that death is too good for these sick people who commit these brutal crimes against humanity, we can nolonger afford (financially) to keep 'em around. Have a good day.

We might as well enjoy the executions.....

............THUNDERDOME !!!!............

..two men enter...one man leaves : repeat

Look at the success of WWF & "Reality" TV (scary, isn't it)....but this would be for real......

As long as it's slow and painful (gotta have commercial breaks), I'm all for it...
At absolute minimum..... execute the scum in the same manner that they dispatched their victims.

Keep the death penalty, but I agree with Saul. Life after a heinous crime ought to be terrible for them.

quote:

Good to see no bleading -heart liberals here!

They will be here soon enough.

I agree with Saul. Horrible life for a year until they die. Victims families should have the honor of killing them. I can think of lots of great ways. (Lethal injection not allowed.)

JC

quote:

Originally posted by rocnsanman:
Good to see no bleading -heart liberals here! And although I agree with Saul (and all those that agree with me) that death is too good for these sick people who commit these brutal crimes against humanity, we can nolonger afford (financially) to keep 'em around. Have a good day.

It's years since I've read the studies, but then it cost more to execute them because of all the attorney and court costs for all the appeals, something in the range of a million dollars.

This topic has circulated since the dawn of man. Murder and other violent crimes will forever exist. There is no way to curb its frequency. The death penalty should be used as not a deterrent but rather a solution to end individual cases. To let some of these people see another day and live to kill again is not what I believe in. That’s my opinion…

How about we take this a step further and also execute scum like Ken Lay and all the rest of the swindlers who haven't killed anyone per se, but have destroyed countless peoples lives in their lust for MORE. Would that make the shady businessman think twice before embezzeling the company funds?

I work at a rock quarry, so shoveling rock would be too easy on them, especially the murderers or molesters of innocent children. Give them a one way ticket to the front lines with one 20 round clip......empty.....with no one behind them. Or do the humane thing and club them into oblivion.....slowly

Sorry, this Sh*% erks me.

Wait, have you all gone mad???
You can't take a life, or your
just as bad as them!!!



just kidding, kill the fu@kers!!

To expect that a psychopath is going to spend the rest of his life regretting the violent crime he committed is contrary to what makes him a psychopath in the first place. I believe that there are punishment, deterrent, and protection of society aspects of the death penalty that make it suitable for heinous, victimizing crimes.

PJ - The Ken Lay argument is one where I see the dissolution of all his assets (to the people, not the SEC or government), and the periodic visual of Ken lay leading a pathetic life at hard labor has on-going value in warning other potential shady CEO's. He certainly screwed over a lot of faithful employees and shouldn't do time in a country club.

Bleeding heart liberal here. Your description, not mine.

There's no question that some crimes are so brutal, so unbelievably cruel, so unthinkably vile that we cry out for revenge; revenge because it's too late for justice. And revenge is justified. I have no thoughts - none - that any such perpetrators can be remorseful, re-habilitated and allowed another chance in society. They deserve to die.

Still. I'll never reconcile myself to the fact that the state can kill a human being with premeditation and ceremony, under color of law, in our names. My opposition to the death penalty doesn't stem from any misplaced sympathy for those who murder - murder demonstrates a profound lack of respect for human life, and for this very reason, killing is abhorrent. Any policy of state-authorized homicide is immoral, and teaches that it's permissible to kill human beings to solve social problems, and can be pragmatically justified.

I'm not talking about the economics of the death penalty vs incarceration. I'm not talking about its unequal and arbitrary application. I'm not talking about the fact we haven't begun to address the social ills that spawn violence, nor implement appropriate anti-crime measures to deal with it. I'm not talking about the fact that the majority of big city police chiefs are of the opinion the deterrent effect of the death penalty is quite limited. I'm talking about how the death penalty, even for those monsters who so clearly deserve it, cheapens life, erodes our dignity and diminishes us as a moral society.

I expect this opinion will be fairly unpopular here. But it's what I believe, and always have.

Thanks, Jack. I totally agree with this aspect as well, but wouldn't call it "Bleeding Heart Liberalism." More like "Upholding Normative Standards of Conduct Adhered to by Society for Thousands of Years."

Jack, well said.

I am for the death penalty myself, but the recent overturning of several convictions concerns me.

Dunno where that puts me, probably on the fence.

BTW, my bleeding heart liberalism is slowly decaying as the years go by.

Let me give you one more thing to think about. This is extracted from, of all places, an essay by the ultra-conservative FoxNews commentator Matt Hayes.

" ... statistics maintained by the Death Penalty Information Center that show that, since 1994, more than 80 convicts, including 10 sentenced to death, have been exonerated through the use of DNA. "Exonerated" doesn't mean that their sentences were shortened; it means that the government got the wrong guy. Those people walked out of prison.

In 1987, Stanford Law School published a study concluding that at least 20 innocent people had been put to death since 1905. The authors contacted Ernest Van den Haag, the author of a 1986 Harvard Law Review article titled, "The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense," and asked if their finding altered his views.

As if he were Andy Grove speaking of defective computer chips, Van den Haag replied, "If true, a very acceptable number. All human activities — building houses, driving a car, playing golf or football — cause innocent people to suffer wrongful death, but we don't give them up because on the whole we feel there's a net gain. Here, a net gain in justice is being done."

A sentiment not likely shared by Mead Shumway, who, after being convicted of murdering his employer's wife, protested his innocence right up to the gallows, saying, "May God forgive everyone who has said anything against me."

A year after Shumway was buried, his employer confessed to murdering his own wife.

If an innocent person dies while driving a car, it is ordinarily the result of negligence — an "accident." If an innocent person dies at the execution of a death sentence, it is always deliberate — unless you adopt Van den Haag's premise, which seems to be that our public institutions are entitled to a certain amount of negligent conduct in their application of capital punishment.

If you credit the findings of the Stanford Law Review article, one innocent person was put to death every 4.1 years between 1905 and 1987, a time long before DNA testing came into use. The statistics offered by the Death Penalty Information Center show that were it not for DNA testing, our government would have executed an innocent person once every 15 months since 1994."

Mr White; You have obviously never experienced violence directed toward you, or a member of your family.....

Believe me, your perspective would change rather quickly.....