Michael Morales was scheduled for execution at San Quentin yesterday. The execution has been post postponed twice. A judge ruled that an anesthesiologist had to be on scene to make sure Morales was unconcious so he wouldn't feel "any pain." The thing is the doctors can't participate due to possible ethics violations.
I've come to the conclusion that the 8th Amendment needs to be changed to allow for "cruel and unusual punishment," in certain instances. Morales is a prime example of why this change needs to happen.
Morales' victim was hit over the with a rock, stabbed, then raped, and left for dead. From what I heard on a radio show, the victim was involved in a "love triangle," some guy was upset that his man like chicks. The victim was only 17.
Part of the inefficency of capital punishment is that, 1) it takes too long to execute people. We have to find a way to expedite the process and still ensure due process. 2) There's no barbarism in the execution of the sentence. In order for the death penalty to be the deterrent that's it's suppose to be, an execution needs to be a sadisitc, savage, humiliating spectacle conducted in a public forum. At a minimum, Michael Morales should die in the manner his victim did, maybe a more torturous manner, such as scourging, flaying, or burning. If these things were done. Then the death penalty would be a effective deterrent.
People say "that's it's ashame that the US executes people and it's the mark of an uncivilized society." I disagree. Only a nation that's strong and firm in it's morals and values has the courage to stand up and say. "There are certain crimes that are so horrible, so henious, that you if you are convicted of them that you will pay for with your life."
What does it say about the United States of America when a 12 yr old can get an abortion without notifying a parent, but you have an idiot judge that's worried about a convicted rapist and murderer feeling pain during his execution?
Part of the inefficency of capital punishment is that, 1) it takes too long to execute people. We have to find a way to expedite the process and still ensure due process. 2) There's no barbarism in the execution of the sentence. In order for the death penalty to be the deterrent that's it's suppose to be, an execution needs to be a sadisitc, savage, humiliating spectacle conducted in a public forum. At a minimum, Michael Morales should die in the manner his victim did, maybe a more torturous manner, such as scourging, flaying, or burning. If these things were done. Then the death penalty would be a effective deterrent.
I agree with you in part, but you have to understand that the death penalty is exactly that, A PENALTY or punishment. Regardless of it being an effective deterrent, I just want the process to be quick, efficient, and lethal.
Some give reason that because Capital Punishment is not a deterrent it should be abolished. That line of thinking is flawed. If it does happen to become a deterrent, that would only be icing on the cake.
i think it will never become a deterent as its suppose to be as long as the courts are so reluctant to use it. eye for and eye as hammurabi said. thats all their is too it. i think that if a person knew, without a doubt, that if he murdered, he would be killed, the the murder would never take place. what better detterent could there be???
"If I cannot smoke in heaven, then I shall not go!"
Posts: 965 | Location: University of Delaware | Registered: January 22, 2006
It seems that the judicial system is more for the criminal than the victim. A person gets convicted of 1st degree murder, then can sit on death row for who knows how long before they execute him/her, or the convict never gets to the chair, chamber.... As someone who has had an immediate family member murdered, I am all for capital punishment. I'm not one to wish harm on anyone, but if some of these politicians and legislators actually knew how someone like me felt, they may be more apt to act. I think George Carlin had a good point, he wanted to know why, when someone was getting a lethal injection, the individual was still getting his/her arm swabbed with alcohol. Although, I do agree with El Mamerro, I don't recall this ever being a deterrant.
"Happiness is a good martini, a good meal, a good cigar and a good woman, or a bad woman, depending on how much happiness you can stand" George Burns
Posts: 622 | Location: Lincoln Park, MI | Registered: March 21, 2004
Hey, if you kill you should be killed. I hate Violence, but the criminal is winning this fight.what are we to do when the law is helping the criminal get alway with the thing's they do.
The death penalty is more about society feeling like they are getting "revenge".
According to everything I have read, the death penalty in itself is no deterrant. That is, compared to life imprisonment without possibility of parole.
My only problem with the death penalty is that it costs too much ... 10 to 20 or more times as much as to keep someone in prison for life.
Posts: 1884 | Location: San Francisco, CA, USA | Registered: August 20, 2003
It seems to me that it was more of a deterrent when it was swiftly applied.
The death penalty should only be applied if there is definitive DNA evidence and the individual has been able to appeal - once - to each level of the appeals process.
All individuals currently on death row should have DNA evidence against them or have their sentences reduced to life without perole. Of course, it there is DNA that is not theirs they should be released.
There is no reason that it should take 10 years or more to proceed.
Special boards could be set up to just review appeals so that things can be processed faster.
----------------- Yes. I AM a pig.
Posts: 418 | Location: Spanaway, WA, USA | Registered: June 23, 2002
I'm an "eye for an eye" kind of person, and frankly I think that if a person is sentences to the DP they ought to die in the same fashion their victim(s) did. The DP is not effective, but I'm tired of the worst of the worst getting to live out their days with a bed and three squares, especially after they've ended an innocent life. They're scum, and if they feel the laws don't apply to them, then I say the laws shouldn't, including the one about no cruel and unusual punishment.
"Don't like it too much, they're more expensive than drugs."
Posts: 520 | Location: Chicago, IL | Registered: September 19, 2004
I was at Colonial Williamsburg last weekend and toured the old capitol and jail (or Gaol, as it was spelled). The thing that interested me was that it was a jail for the entire state of Virginia, which spanned from the coast to the Mississippi river and up to the great lakes and had a population of close to half a million, yet the jail only had 5 cells. Oh, and one of the only times the Jail was full was when 13 of Blackbeard's pirates were there. So, how did they get away with that many cells? Well, you only stayed in Jail while you were awaiting your trial - they believed that incarceration was too extreme and inhumane of a punishment, so if you were found guilty, you were either put to death or branded - publicly. Furthermore, the condition of the jail was so bad that it was very possible for you to DIE while you were awaiting your trial... think about that... you could be innocent, but still die in jail waiting for trial even though it was the jail keeper’s job to make sure you were healthy. Bad conditions. Going to jail was... almost a punishment in itself back then.
These were the fathers of our country, yet now the tables have turned so that now it is considered inhumane to die a painless death for a horrible crime. It is inhumane for a criminal to suffer while they are in prison - they are allowed privacy, heat, air, good meals, TV, radio, books to read, exercise facilities, and even jobs if they want them... where is the punishment in that? Oh, by the way, all of this is free to them and their families - the taxpayers, victims, and families of the victims pay for the criminal to be very well taken care of and treated with respect. I know that if I were homeless and had no hope of recovering, I'd TRY to go to jail - at least there I'd be taken care of for free and not even have to lift a finger if I didn't want to.
I think there's enough cummulative punishment, deterrent, protecting of society, and indirect vengeance to warrant the death penalty.
After we have capitulated the form of execution down to 'lethal injection' in many places - it is ridiculous that this is considered painful. Maybe before they are executed, they should be strapped down, and shown which form should be used to register a complaint about how uncomfortable their death was. Oh yeah, make sure it's in triplicate and notarized!!
Posts: 818 | Location: Central New Jersey | Registered: March 15, 2005
I live in Missouri where the new Supreme Court judge Sam Alito ruled for a stay of execution for a man who kidnapped a 15 year old girl who was waiting for the school bus to pick her up. Not only did he kidnap her, he and his fellow murderer both raped her several times and while she begged for her life stabbed her and stuffed her in the trunk of their car (which they had just stolen). This young girl was found naked, dumped by the side of the road like a piece of garbage. Both of the murderers confessed and told their story to police when caught. The murderer has been on death row longer than his victim lived. He has since of course found religion while incarcerated and worrys about the pain he will feel during his execution.
I hope this is not a trend for Alito as this was one of his first rulings. I for one agree with the saying that the death penalty is more of revenge than a deterent. These kind of people do not deserve to live a life even in jail when they have ruined many peoples lives.
Originally posted by Baboy Ako: It seems to me that it was more of a deterrent when it was swiftly applied.
The death penalty should only be applied if there is definitive DNA evidence and the individual has been able to appeal - once - to each level of the appeals process.
All individuals currently on death row should have DNA evidence against them or have their sentences reduced to life without perole. Of course, it there is DNA that is not theirs they should be released.
There is no reason that it should take 10 years or more to proceed.
Special boards could be set up to just review appeals so that things can be processed faster.
This is a silly requirement...you can be just as guilty without a shred of DNA evidence. Most crimes are solved without DNA.
