# 3 executions in the U.S. over 24 hours



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

The U.S., one of the last few countries to carry out such punishment, has executed 3 people within 24 hours. They hold such respectable company as China, and Iran (and are only behind these 2 in exécutions). All this comes after a call from the International Community to not sell said execution drugs to the U.S. and therefore these states are using drugs from places they refuse to divulge. I myself am a dedicated "truth from government" fan and this seems that this is just another example of going behind the public's back in order to fullfill the desires of the government. If these people were so proud of what they were doing, why would they not stand up and be "Loud and proud"? Oh. Before any of the trolls come out and start crying as to victim's rights, I have not stated (nor will I ever) that the victim's shouldn't be considered. The fact is that state sponsered murder, should it be allowed at all, should be under exact régulations that are clear and consice versus running wild at the state level with the states hiding how they use taxpayer money.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

I agree with you. And the state killing of people for the crime of killing is not only a supreme hypocrisy it is also clearly not an effective deterent if the recent spree of shootings by lone gunmen in schools, malls, workplaces, night clubs etc. is anything to go by.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I agree with you. And the state killing of people for the crime of killing is not only a supreme hypocrisy it is also clearly not an effective deterent if the recent spree of shootings by lone gunmen in schools, malls, workplaces, night clubs etc. is anything to go by.


Indeed. The fact is that the U.S: has the highest percentage of its population being held in jails compared to any other "civilized" nation. Even If we were to ignore such things as racial biases & lack of proper representation of those not able to afford lawyers, it seems that the "death penalty" has detered no one from commiting some of the most horrendous crimes in modern history. While I disagree with most violence, it seems that there is alot of displaced agression going towards the U.S. schoolyards. Political violence has be "the norm" for as long as history has been recorded but kids killing kids at school seems to be a newer phenomenon that is almost excluvise to the U.S.. The most stunning example of this recently were the two 12 y.o. girls that stabbed their classmate multiple times. Even more stunning... That they are being tried as "Adults"... This from a country that allows states to determine the age of adults and most have chosen 18 as the "line in the sand". I may be wrong but I also believe that all U.S. states claim that a person isn't capable of determing their capability of drinking alcoholic beverages before the age of 21 (it's 16 here in Switzerland and we have very few problems with drinking violence, drunk driving, etc). Perhaps my theory is wrong, but it seems that by calling kids adults and not allowing them the rights to be such, harms society overall. By stating that a 12 y.o. is an adult, then they should have had the same rights as adults as soon as they hit "adult" age. I myself think the U.S. needs to come up with a national standard as to child/adult. If you need to be 21 in order to understand the conséquences of having a beer, then you most likely need to be 21 to understand the conséquences of attempted murder (again, I have said nothing against the victim in anyway).


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

I used to be for capital punishment, but no longer. There are simply too many documented errors (willful or actual mistakes) to allow for this ultimate punishment. These cases are usually career makers for the prosecutors who often springboard to bigger and better political office. Its application is also often politically motivated for that reason and to make the area seem tough on crime. 

I am not under any delusion that the people being executed are often innocent, little lambs because they almost never are anything but hardened and experienced criminals.

It also probably never serves as a deterrent so those arguments are specious at best.

Although it is off topic, I also agree with J1M on the tying people as adults. That falls right into the politicization of these cases.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

You raise a number of different issues - capital punishment, propensity to crime/to murder, age of criminal responsibility, licensing laws (both alcohol and firearms), violence and drinking.

On the issue of capital punishment, can one not say that it is a case of the punishment fitting the crime?

Its effectiveness as a deterrence may be a separate issue, but at least in the UK, as the chart shows, when capital punishment was abolished (1965), murder was at a historically low level. Since then it has risen, but whether there is any connection, no one can say with any certainty.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

I support the death penalty in certain instances. The death penalty is clearly no deterrent to murderers but it would assuredly make those who are guilty of the following dastardly crimes think twice about their bestial behaviour: cheating on the football pitch, excessive noisiness on public transport, failing to control children in a public place, queue jumping, littering, inconsiderate driving and cruelty to animals.

.
.
.
.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

The DP is 100% effective in deterring the future crimes of the now dead murderer.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> I used to be for capital punishment, but no longer. There are simply too many documented errors (willful or actual mistakes) to allow for this ultimate punishment. These cases are usually career makers for the prosecutors who often springboard to bigger and better political office. Its application is also often politically motivated for that reason and to make the area seem tough on crime.
> 
> I am not under any delusion that the people being executed are often innocent, little lambs because they almost never are anything but hardened and experienced criminals.
> 
> ...


I myself was a "hardcore" capital punishment guy. I was at one point a diehard republican and agreed with In certain cases that demanded the death penality. I was born and raised in a conservative repubican family. I admit that the death penality might be, "in theory" a good idea ,but I haven't seen that killing someone actually has been beneficial. It costs society $millions more to do so compared to leaving these people alive. I myself, would be in favour of studying these "animals". Should we not learn how to avoid future disasters versus punishing past issues? I also have issues with politicians. The lawyers charged with such cases want to be famous and advance their careers. They have very little to do with "justice^". We have seen this several times with those that have been wrongly convicted. Killing someone over politics is no less than murder and the lawyers that have put politcs over justice deserve death before any of mthe criminals that have actually dome such crimes (those in positions of "authority" should bve held much more responsible as to their false actions compared to the criminals themselves). I will always claim that the former method of U.S. justice to be correct... "better a hundred guilty go free compared to 1 inocent being punished". What complete sh"t that the opposite now seems to be true...


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

I am against the death penalty for one simple reason: it is supremely expensive; many times more costly than life-long imprisonment. 

Beyond that, I took a college course on the death penalty where I read a bunch of studies that had surveys of murderers. Nearly all of them didn't find the death penalty to be a deterrent. Interestingly, most said that if executions were publicly broadcast, it would be more of a deterrent.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Langham said:


> You raise a number of different issues - capital punishment, propensity to crime/to murder, age of criminal responsibility, licensing laws (both alcohol and firearms), violence and drinking.
> 
> On the issue of capital punishment, can one not say that it is a case of the punishment fitting the crime?
> 
> Its effectiveness as a deterrence may be a separate issue, but at least in the UK, as the chart shows, when capital punishment was abolished (1965), murder was at a historically low level. Since then it has risen, but whether there is any connection, no one can say with any certainty.


OOF. and the abolishment of firearms has done what? Given rise to the killing by knives. Should we abolish everything that can commit murder? Welcome to the U.K.?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> The DP is 100% effective in deterring the future crimes of the now dead murderer.


So is life in prison. Your point is what exactly?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

How far should the U.S. go? Killing kids at the age of 12? Killing those right at the point of being retarted? At what point can the U.S. claim "Moral supriortiy" and go on doing what has been shown to be unacceptable within the international community?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

justonemore said:


> I will always claim that the former method of U.S. justice to be correct... "better a hundred guilty go free compared to 1 inocent being punished". What complete sh"t that the opposite now seems to be true...


That is an expression.

It was never a law.

You have twisted it into a shallow, meaningless and hackneyed one at that!!


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> That is an expression.
> 
> It was never a law.
> 
> You have twisted it into a shallow, meaningless and hackneyed one at that!!


Ah. as was "the land of the free".. I guess you think such an expression to be B.S as well? I never claimed anything about law versus ideology. Was the U.S. not formed upon ideolgy? oops. I guess the only ideolgy that matters is the conservative christian thoughts that are actually against the U.S. constituition and its bill of rights?

It has been, and always will be, the correct American ideolgy that we will let criminals go free before killing off the innocent. While You seem to prefer the Islamic veresion of justice, I will always promote freedom and justice over bs political "justice". Any thought otherwise is anti-american.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Tilton said:


> I am against the death penalty for one simple reason: it is supremely expensive; many times more costly than life-long imprisonment.
> 
> Beyond that, I took a college course on the death penalty where I read a bunch of studies that had surveys of murderers. Nearly all of them didn't find the death penalty to be a deterrent. Interestingly, most said that if executions were publicly broadcast, it would be more of a deterrent.


1) The obvious solution is to make the DP less costly and more effective. Not abolishing it.

2) I think it is more likely that the condemned would enjoy the limelight.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

justonemore said:


> I never claimed anything about law versus ideology.





justonemore said:


> ....former method of U.S. justice


Whatever.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Whatever.


What a great comeback.. Do you have any logic or just a one liner "Hitch" ideology?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

justonemore said:


> OOF. and the abolishment of firearms has done what? Given rise to the killing by knives. Should we abolish everything that can commit murder? Welcome to the U.K.?


Gun control might well have led to an increase in killing with knives - just as abolition of the death penalty in the UK seems to have been followed by an increase in murder. However, the rate is still not much more than one per 100,000, so you needn't necessarily change your travel plans for fear of being murdered here.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Most murders are committed in rage, or under the influence of drink or drugs, or are of partners or family members. In the first two categories no penalty would be a deterrent as the murderer is not reasoning. In the third category the murderer won't be murdering anybody else, so the deterrent is irrelevant. 
That's apart from the moral paradox of killing to prevent killing and the potential for mistakes. In any case the graph shows that the death penalty certainly wasn't an effective deterrent.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Langham said:


> Gun control might well have led to an increase in killing with knives - just as abolition of the death penalty in the UK seems to have been followed by an increase in murder. However, the rate is still not much more than one per 100,000, so you needn't necessarily change your travel plans for fear of being murdered here.


Should you have any links as to your assertaions, I would be quite hapy to read through them. From what I've seen, the only correct correlation is that which I mentioned (firearm deaths compared to knife deaths). From what I've seen, lack of dealth penalty in the U.K. has not raised the amount of murders. I welcome you to prove me worng and will admit to my mistakes should you be capable of doing so. While you're at it, can you show the same relation as to other countries or is it only in relation to the U.S. & U.K.?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Thou Shalt Not Kill.

That applies to everyone including the state.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Thou Shalt Not Kill.
> 
> That applies to everyone including the state.


Yep. In a perfect world that should be the main and "only" rule that needs to be followed. However, we live in a sad (and shi**y) world where none of the "golden rules" seem to be accepted (not by politicnas, not by religions, not by those following "society").


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

justonemore said:


> Should you have any links as to your assertaions, I would be quite hapy to read through them. From what I've seen, the only correct correlation is that which I mentioned (firearm deaths compared to knife deaths). From what I've seen, lack of dealth penalty in the U.K. has not raised the amount of murders. I welcome you to prove me worng and will admit to my mistakes should you be capable of doing so. While you're at it, can you show the same relation as to other countries or is it only in relation to the U.S. & U.K.?


See post no. 5, which you have even replied to - a graph correlating the increase in murder over the period since abolition of the death penalty. As I said there, it does not necessarily 'prove' anything, but there is some clear correlation.

My only assertion so far in the thread has been that, as a punishment, death seems appropriate ( indeed, it is very elegantly fitting) to the crime.

Opponents always cite the risk of mistake and injustice, but that has no bearing on the philosophical justice of capital punishment. Anyway, is a swift death by hanging or some other means any less humane than incarceration for the rest of a person's natural life?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

It's always a bit disheartening to hear of executions being carried out, even when there is absolutely no doubt that the person caught, convicted and executed is the one who committed the crime in question. However, I do feel that there are acts/crimes that do call for the application of such penalties. I'm sure if we were to talk with the families and friends of the victims of the depraved individuals committing such crimes, a certain majority of them would defend the continued use of the death penalty. The majority (but certainly not all) of those working in law enforcement and charged with processing the crime scenes and investigating the actions of those arrested for committing capital crimes are inclined toward the continued use of the death penalty...but, in a sense, they too are victims. One cannot easily dismiss such feeling when you are forced to deal with it. 

I'm sure many will disagree with me regarding the death penalty, just as many of you would consider my perspectives on defending hearth and home to be arguably barbaric. If one of those 'drug crazed, 18 to 20 year old heathens, justonemore spoke of, breaks into my home in an effort to fund the continuation of their drug habit or to harm any member of my family, they will be greeted with the business end of a Beretta 1301 Tactical, 12Ga! Make no mistake about it, we are all eventually held accountable for our actions.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Thou Shalt Not Kill.
> 
> That applies to everyone including the state.


Does this apply to war or self defense?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

justonemore said:


> What a great comeback.. Do you have any logic...


No, frankly, I quoted you.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> It's always a bit disheartening to hear of executions being carried out, even when there is absolutely no doubt that the person caught, convicted and executed is the one who committed the crime in question. However, I do feel that there are acts/crimes that do call for the application of such penalties. I'm sure if we were to talk with the families and friends of the victims of the depraved individuals committing such crimes, a certain majority of them would defend the continued use of the death penalty. The majority (but certainly not all) of those working in law enforcement and charged with processing the crime scenes and investigation the actions of those arrested for committing capital crimes are inclined toward the continued use of the death penalty...but, in a sense, they too are victims. One cannot easily dismiss such feeling when you are forced to deal with it.


I would guess that if anyone is capable of reading my posts correctly, it would be you . I did indeed state that at certain points, we might use such a punishment (if they weren't in reality considered as disabled in any way). Some jerk that has gone into a restaurant (and has been clearly videotaped), might be someone considered for such punishment. Should someone kill my daughters, I would most likely be one to take the law into my own hands and take my penality as to the "justice system". I am a human. I have human emotions. I have no problem admiting that I would enjoy killing some bastard that killed my children... That being said... The government is the "idea" of justice. Justice does not seek revenge as does the individual. My sense of justice would be based on emotions and emotions are not really justice (as much as I'd like them to be so Under such situations). To me, I would find cutting off pièces of the person that killed my children to be "justice". The term "torture" would mean nothing to me. Is it correct? I sit here with tears in my eyes as to such thoughts and a smile on my face as to the consequensces. But... It's still not a correct version of "justice" no matter how hard I want it to be. Should the "law" get their hands on such people before me, I would most likely be able to calm down and realize that there was somehting beyond the situation. Maybe? Perhaps then I wouldn't lower myself to be at the same level... Perhaps...I don't know...While I'm not a fan of admitting that I would kill a person... I do admit that in ceratin circumstances it might happen. I have always claimed to be a fan of self defense and firearms rights. I will always state that I prefer someone that threathens myself or my family should be in the grave first. It's a hard call but I still think that studying such people would be an advantage compared to killing them off in the name of justice.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

justonemore said:


> I would guess that if anyone is capable of reading my posts correctly, it would be you . I did indeed state that at certain points, we might use such a punishment (if they weren't in reality considered as disabled in any way). Some jerk that has gone into a restaurant (and has been clearly videotaped), might be someone considered for such punishment. Should someone kill my daughters, I would most likely be one to take the law into my own hands and take my penality as to the "justice system". I am a human. I have human emotions. I have no problem admiting that I would enjoy killing some bastard that killed my children... That being said... The government is the "idea" of justice. Justice does not seek revenge as does the individual. My sense of justice would be based on emotions and emotions are not really justice (as much as I'd like them to be so Under such situations). To me, I would find cutting off pièces of the person that killed my children to be "justice". The term "torture" would mean nothing to me. Is it correct? I sit here with tears in my eyes as to such thoughts and a smile on my face as to the consequensces. But... It's still not a correct version of "justice" no matter how hard I want it to be. Should the "law" get their hands on such people before me, I would most likely be able to calm down and realize that there was somehting beyond the situation. Maybe? Perhaps then I wouldn't lower myself to be at the same level... Perhaps...I don't know...While I'm not a fan of admitting that I would kill a person... I do admit that in ceratin circumstances it might happen. I have always claimed to be a fan of self defense and firearms rights. I will always state that I prefer someone that threathens myself or my family should be in the grave first. It's a hard call but I still think that studying such people would be an advantage compared to killing them off in the name of justice.


Some good points Eagle. Is the death penalty in the cause of revenge? If so, the state has no right to seek revenge, only justice, and the death penalty isn't justice. Is the death penalty in the cause of deterrence? If so then if it isn't a deterrent if murders don't stop, in which case the death penalty isn't a deterrent so is pointless.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> Does this apply to war or self defense?


It can, and ideally should apply to self-defence when and wherever possible i.e. minimum amount of force required to achieve your aim. Sadly, I know, full well, that it isn't always possible & sometimes a victim has to kill to stay alive!

War speaks for itself unfortunately.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Just a question for all those that favour the death penalty. As to The 2 girls in Wisconsin that where charged as adults for what was quite a hideous crime... They would, as adults, be candidates for the death penalty... Which of you (I'm thinking of Hitch here), would be willing to put a bullet into their heads? A 12 year old. Go ahead and state your truths as they are. If you support the death penality, and you support trying children as adults thanI would certainly hope that you are enough of a monster to personally put a bullet into the brain of a 12 y.o girl for her "crimes". Such an idea makes me want to vomit but I suppose that "elected" prosecuters from the U.S. go home and sleep well at night. Others may call me "anti-American" but this is not the America I was raised to beilieve in.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> It's always a bit disheartening to hear of executions being carried out, even when there is absolutely no doubt that the person caught, convicted and executed is the one who committed the crime in question. However, I do feel that there are acts/crimes that do call for the application of such penalties. I'm sure if we were to talk with the families and friends of the victims of the depraved individuals committing such crimes, a certain majority of them would defend the continued use of the death penalty. The majority (but certainly not all) of those working in law enforcement and charged with processing the crime scenes and investigating the actions of those arrested for committing capital crimes are inclined toward the continued use of the death penalty...but, in a sense, they too are victims. One cannot easily dismiss such feeling when you are forced to deal with it.
> 
> I'm sure many will disagree with me regarding the death penalty, just as many of you would consider my perspectives on defending hearth and home to be arguably barbaric. If one of those 'drug crazed, 18 to 20 year old heathens, justonemore spoke of, breaks into my home in an effort to fund the continuation of their drug habit or to harm any member of my family, they will be greeted with the business end of a Beretta 1301 Tactical, 12Ga! Make no mistake about it, we are all eventually held accountable for our actions.


The problem is, the system is so fallible. End of day, society shouldn't be deciding who lives and who dies any more than murderers should be deciding who lives and who dies.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Whatever.


Umm. You quoted 12 words and perhaps 2 phrases. Your reponse to the entire ideology of a serveral paragraph post was "whatever"... Is there a logical debate somewhere there that I might be missing or are you just trolling?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

justonemore said:


> Just a question for all those that favour the death penalty. As to The 2 girls in Wisconsin that where charged as adults for what was quite a hideous crime... They would, as adults, be candidates for the death penalty... Which of you (I'm thinking of Hitch here), would be willing to put a bullet into their heads? A 12 year old. Go ahead and state your truths as they are. If you support the death penality, and you support trying children as adults thanI would certainly hope that you are enough of a monster to personally put a bullet into the brain of a 12 y.o girl for her "crimes". Such an idea makes me want to vomit but I suppose that "elected" prosecuters from the U.S. go home and sleep well at night. Others may call me "anti-American" but this is not the America I was raised to beilieve in.


I stand to be corrected if my facts are wrong, but my understanding is that in 2005 the Supreme Court effectively barred the death penalty for anyone under 18 (Roper v Simmons).


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Langham said:


> I stand to be corrected if my facts are wrong, but my understanding is that in 2005 the Supreme Court effectively barred the death penalty for anyone under 18 (Roper v Simmons).


And the prosecution of those Under 18 as "Adults" comes Under what? the dealth penalty has also been barred for those that Under acceptable I.Q. norms but it hasn't stopped Texas from killing off those that are 2 points above the U.S. "norms". I stand by my question. If a child at age 12 has commited a crime enough to be tried as an adult, which of you would be willing to put a bullet into their heads? It isn't a hard question to answer. If you think a little girl is a hard criminal, and you think she should be executed, then you must be willing to blow the brains out of her head (as a hardened criminal of course). What the B.S U.S: court says today will be changed tomorrow. It's been shown time, and time again. In fact, the U.S: supreme court only follows politics (which is why all présidents hope to elect another politcal bastard to the court).


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ In most if not all legal systems there is an element of discretion which makes allowance for the moral (in)capacity of minors and others who for whatever reason are not responsible for their actions. Even in the 19th century, insanity was a defence for murder. It is always a question of where the threshold lies; sometimes that is decided in statute, sometimes the court must make a judgment.

Incidentally, I do not personally have to be prepared to carry out the death penalty in order to be in favour of it, just as I do not need to fly the aeroplane when I wish to travel abroad.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Langham said:


> I stand to be corrected if my facts are wrong, but my understanding is that in 2005 the Supreme Court effectively barred the death penalty for anyone under 18 (Roper v Simmons).


Never inject facts into a good America bashing rant!!


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) The obvious solution is to make the DP less costly and more effective. Not abolishing it.
> 
> 2) I think it is more likely that the condemned would enjoy the limelight.


1. Sure, but it is hard to make it cheaper and more effective without accidentally killing off the wrong criminals. It isn't the actual act of execution that is expensive, it is the litigation. I'm not morally opposed to the death penalty, but I don't think millions of tax dollars need to be spent to kill one criminal when we could just save it and let him sit in a cell for the rest of his life. All told, winning the death penalty costs about $4mil above the cost of winning life in prison, if I recall correctly, not including the time the inmate spends on death row, which, on average, costs about $90,000 more per year compared to leaving him in general population.

2. Maybe some might but most criminals probably would not. Anyway, the point of that research was that the death penalty was just this sort of intangible looming consequence that either seemed so unrealistic or so distant that it didn't have any bearing on their actions. Most of the respondents were more afraid of punishments like being blinded, losing a hand, or being placed in gen-pop prison.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Never inject facts into a good America bashing rant!!


still no logical arguement over name calling? Geesh. I thought you better than others. My fault.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Langham said:


> ^ In most if not all legal systems there is an element of discretion which makes allowance for the moral (in)capacity of minors and others who for whatever reason are not responsible for their actions. Even in the 19th century, insanity was a defence for murder. It is always a question of where the threshold lies; sometimes that is decided in statute, sometimes the court must make a judgment.
> 
> Incidentally, I do not personally have to be prepared to carry out the death penalty in order to be in favour of it, just as I do not need to fly the aeroplane when I wish to travel abroad.


And you would be willing to crash to your death due to your ignorance. How wonderful. I can(and will) take control of any craft that I happen to be on that goes out of control of those that are "qualified". I don't have to drive the "taxi" that I hire in order to take control of it should the driver become disabled. I also don't have to let my government "représentatives" take charge of my ideolgy as to what is correct. Should I really desire to have someone killed in the name of my society, I would pull the trigger myself. Are you beyond such an idea? You want others to kill for you, (and in your name), but goodness forbid you might be willing to do so yourself? The only woprd I can think of in such a situation is that you are being a "coward". Pull the trigger or go sit at home with the children. Ohterwise.. Just admit that the situation is B.S. and state that it's wrong (which it is). Putting the blame on others versus yourself is just cr*p. Kill when you think it's right, otherwise just admit that it's wrong (which will be 99.99% of the time).


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

justonemore said:


> And you would be willing to crash to your death due to your ignorance. How wonderful. I can(and will) take control of any craft that I happen to be on that goes out of control of those that are "qualified". I don't have to drive the "taxi" that I hire in order to take control of it should the driver become disabled. I also don't have to let my government "représentatives" take charge of my ideolgy as to what is correct. Should I really desire to have someone killed in the name of my society, I would pull the trigger myself. Are you beyond such an idea?


I suspect you may have misunderstood my analogy (I can, as it happens, fly light aircraft, but if I am sitting in row 666 of a super jumbo that 'goes out of control', then I'm stuffed).

I was going to enlarge on my views, but you seem to have edited down your original reply.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Regardless of how one feels about the death penalty, the thing I find fascinating is the inability of the government to figure out how to execute someone. It has to be one of the best examples ever of government incompetence. The three-drug cocktail and all that claptrap. Killing someone in a "humane" fashion is, or should be, absurdly easy. Overdose of pentobarbital or, if you are feeling particularly nice, morphine. Morphine is legal and it works every time. Junkies brought back from what could have been fatal overdoses are sometimes angry at whoever saved their lives because their "high" was ruined by a Narcan injection. What better endorsement of an execution method?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Langham said:


> I suspect you may have misunderstood my analogy (I can, as it happens, fly light aircraft, but if I am sitting in row 666 of a super jumbo that 'goes out of control', then I'm stuffed).
> 
> I was going to enlarge on my views, but you seem to have edited down your original reply.


As always, I edit when I can due to the fact that I am sitting in a train writing on a so called "smart" phone. Should you have any problem with my orignal post, please quote it and I'll do my best to continue. Should you have any problems with my edits, I will do my best to debate them. My main point has remained ,has it not? Funny that the complaint is usually as to editing over the main issues.

I do agree with you on certain points. While I can fly a light aircraft , there is a big difference in trying to control a heavy from several seats away. But... I will still try to do so compared to admitting my death.

Oops. another edit... Should I feel someone really needs to die in the name of my society.. I would pull the trigger...After... Yes.. After.. All my demands as to such have been satisfied... I will not kill 12 y.o. girls. I will not kill the menatlly disabled. I will not kill those that have gone beyond societal demand comapared to my own. In fact, it would almost not be possible for me to do such.. But, should I find that such a monster exists, and that such a monster needs to be wiped off of the face of the earth, I would do it myself. Should I not be willing to do it myself, I would not find it acceptable for my society to do such in my name.

And yes, I have edited my posts several times during this debate yet My main points have remained the same.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> Regardless of how one feels about the death penalty, the thing I find fascinating is the inability of the government to figure out how to execute someone. It has to be one of the best examples ever of government incompetence. The three-drug cocktail and all that claptrap. Killing someone in a "humane" fashion is, or should be, absurdly easy. Overdose of pentobarbital or, if you are feeling particularly nice, morphine. Morphine is legal and it works every time. Junkies brought back from what could have been fatal overdoses are sometimes angry at whoever saved their lives because their "high" was ruined by a Narcan injection. What better endorsement of an execution method?


I agree. Personally I favour the French device which, as far as I am aware, has worked satisfactorily every time. Hanging doesn't always go to plan, nor does the electric chair.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Langham said:


> I agree. Personally I favour the French device which, as far as I am aware, has worked satisfactorily every time. Hanging doesn't always go to plan, nor does the electric chair.


How nice. And what is your standard in allowing others to have their heads cut off? Should we only follow your standards? The Islamists seem to like the same method. I guess all of us non-islamists should suffer the same fate? No-Christians perhaps? Maybe those that have been called antisémites should be killed off over ideolgies alone? You seem to ignore many of those that have been persecuted over politcs alone over actual crimes (and there are many that have been killed due to being acused of crimes they didn't commit).


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

justonemore said:


> How nice. And what is your standard in allowing others to have their heads cut off? Should we only follow your standards? The Islamists seem to like the same method. I guess all of us non-islamists should suffer the same fate? No-Christians perhaps? Maybe those that have been called antisémites should be killed off over ideolgies alone? You seem to ignore many of those that have been persecuted over politcs alone over actual crimes (and there are many that have been killed due to being acused of crimes they didn't commit).


You're not a very straightforward person you know. Who said anything about religion or ideology? I was thinking in terms of a suitable punishment (following due judicial process) for murderers, child-rapists and suchlike, I said nothing at all about the Jews and Moslems.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Langham said:


> You're not a very straightforward person you know. Who said anything about religion or ideology? I was thinking in terms of a suitable punishment (following due judicial process) for murderers, child-rapists and suchlike, I said nothing at all about the Jews and Moslems.


I am quite forward. I have claimed that killng others is wrong. Everything else comes down to being backwards and political/religious ideolgies that allow such violence.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Sorry for another post... many people here can't allow editing or it will be somehow "wrong". 


that you want to claim certain categories as correct for killing people shows that you yourself are being a bit backwards versus allowing that the idea is either "DECENT" OR "INCORRECT". Take your pick. I will again ask. Are you willing to cut the heads off of peopel you dislike (and that you might dislike them is the main concern), or will you expect others to do the job for you?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

justonemore said:


> Sorry for another post... many people here can't allow editing or it will be somehow "wrong".
> 
> that you want to claim certain categories as correct for killing people shows that you yourself are being a bit backwards versus allowing that the idea is either "DECENT" OR "INCORRECT". Take your pick. I will again ask. Are you willing to cut the heads off of peopel you dislike (and that you might dislike them is the main concern), or will you expect others to do the job for you?


What have my personal likes or dislikes got to do with it? I thought this was a discussion on the rights and wrongs of capital punishment? All systems of justice punish wrong-doers and there are certain crimes that merit extreme punishment - I think that's quite straight-forward for most people. The answer to your second question (I answered it earlier but somehow that was misconstrued) is yes of course I would expect others to do the job for me, that is what justice systems are for. I like eating meat but that doesn't mean I have to go out and hunt something down, then butcher it myself (not that I would mind doing so if I had the leisure).


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

justonemore said:


> Just a question for all those that favour the death penalty. As to The 2 girls in Wisconsin that where charged as adults for what was quite a hideous crime... They would, as adults, be candidates for the death penalty... Which of you (I'm thinking of Hitch here), would be willing to put a bullet into their heads? A 12 year old. Go ahead and state your truths as they are. If you support the death penality, and you support trying children as adults thanI would certainly hope that you are enough of a monster to personally put a bullet into the brain of a 12 y.o girl for her "crimes". Such an idea makes me want to vomit but I suppose that "elected" prosecuters from the U.S. go home and sleep well at night. Others may call me "anti-American" but this is not the America I was raised to beilieve in.


Would I support it in the abstract? No. Would I put a bullet in their heads if they had a knife to one of my kid's throat threatening to kill him. You bet your ass I would.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Regardless of how one feels about the death penalty, the thing I find fascinating is the inability of the government to figure out how to execute someone. It has to be one of the best examples ever of government incompetence. The three-drug cocktail and all that claptrap. Killing someone in a "humane" fashion is, or should be, absurdly easy. Overdose of pentobarbital or, if you are feeling particularly nice, morphine. Morphine is legal and it works every time. Junkies brought back from what could have been fatal overdoses are sometimes angry at whoever saved their lives because their "high" was ruined by a Narcan injection. What better endorsement of an execution method?


This I totally agree with.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> This I totally agree with.


Progress, then.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> Regardless of how one feels about the death penalty, the thing I find fascinating is the inability of the government to figure out how to execute someone. It has to be one of the best examples ever of government incompetence. The three-drug cocktail and all that claptrap. Killing someone in a "humane" fashion is, or should be, absurdly easy. Overdose of pentobarbital or, if you are feeling particularly nice, morphine. Morphine is legal and it works every time. Junkies brought back from what could have been fatal overdoses are sometimes angry at whoever saved their lives because their "high" was ruined by a Narcan injection. What better endorsement of an execution method?


Shouldn't they just get a Veterinarian to do it??


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Shouldn't they just get a VET to do it??


Someone like Rambo? Excellent idea.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Either!!


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Shouldn't they just get a Veterinarian to do it??


Warden: Well, we've got an execution coming up Tuesday. We're out of drugs--what are we going to do?

Captain of the guards: I don't know, sir. Hanging is uncivilized, and the electric chair is shorted out. Oh, by the way, we just seized an ounce of heroin in the visiting room.

Warden: Well, you know what to do. Throw the contraband away!


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

justonemore said:


> So is life in prison. Your point is what exactly?


The last I looked there dozens of prison murders per year.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

vpkozel said:


> I used to be for capital punishment, but no longer. There are simply too many documented errors (willful or actual mistakes) to allow for this ultimate punishment.


I support capital punishment only if the criterion for its imposition is a much higher one than "reasonable doubt." I've served on enough juries to know that it's way too easy to convict people (in some places, with some juries), leading to many innocent people being executed for stuff they didn't do. I've suggested that the criterion for capital punishment should be guilty beyond any doubt. But I'd hate to lose the ability to execute traitors, serial murderers and violent rapists.



Shaver said:


> I support the death penalty in certain instances. The death penalty is clearly no deterrent to murderers but it would assuredly make those who are guilty of the following dastardly crimes think twice about their bestial behaviour: cheating on the football pitch, excessive noisiness on public transport, failing to control children in a public place, queue jumping, littering, inconsiderate driving and cruelty to animals.


Cruelty to animals is a pretty good predictor of later cruelty and violence toward people.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

MaxBuck said:


> I support capital punishment only if the criterion for its imposition is a much higher one than "reasonable doubt." I've served on enough juries to know that it's way too easy to convict people (in some places, with some juries), leading to many innocent people being executed for stuff they didn't do. I've suggested that the criterion for capital punishment should be guilty beyond any doubt. But I'd hate to lose the ability to execute traitors, serial murderers and violent rapists.
> 
> Cruelty to animals is a pretty good predictor of later cruelty and violence toward people.


Is there such a thing as a non-violent rapist?


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

32rollandrock said:


> Is there such a thing as a non-violent rapist?


Sure. The 18-year-old kid who porks his 15-year-old girlfriend, with her consent.

That's one example; I'm sure there are others.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

MaxBuck said:


> Sure. The 18-year-old kid who porks his 15-year-old girlfriend, with her consent.
> 
> That's one example; I'm sure there are others.


Or the intoxicated-consent-doesn't-equal-consent cases.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

MaxBuck said:


> Sure. The 18-year-old kid who porks his 15-year-old girlfriend, with her consent.
> 
> That's one example; I'm sure there are others.


I stand corrected.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Progress, then.


I think if you read my posts you would see that you were mistaken with your earlier attempt to pigeonhole me as an ideologue.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Three is a good start.

'13 the US suffered just shy of 15,000 murders. the same year saw 39 executions. 

I dont believe it is possible to have any sort of accurate measure of the deterrent effect with numbers so lopsided.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> I think if you read my posts you would see that you were mistaken with your earlier attempt to pigeonhole me as an ideologue.


Not sure we're out of the woods on that one, but progress is progress.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> Is there such a thing as a non-violent rapist?


Rohypnol.

Just sayin'.

:devil:


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Not sure we're out of the woods on that one, but progress is progress.


Oh, don't get me wrong - I really don't care whether you agree with me or not.

I base my opinions on facts and data - understanding that sometimes there needs to be a healthy dose of nuance. None of which are things that an ideologue would do. In fact, based on your posts, I would say that you are much closer to that description than I am and are quick to paint someone with a broad brush when they don't see things your way.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Hitch said:


> Three is a good start.
> 
> '13 the US suffered just shy of 15,000 murders. the same year saw 39 executions.
> 
> I dont believe it is possible to have any sort of accurate measure of the deterrent effect with numbers so lopsided.


Add to that the long delay between conviction and execution (and even the delay between arrest and conviction) and I can't see how deterrence is possible.

If execution is to be a deterrent, IMO it needs to be implemented rapidly. Our legal system as it's currently configured seems incapable of rapidity.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

MaxBuck said:


> Add to that the long delay between conviction and execution (and even the delay between arrest and conviction) and I can't see how deterrence is possible.
> 
> If execution is to be a deterrent, IMO it needs to be implemented rapidly. Our legal system as it's currently configured seems incapable of rapidity.


I really don't think execution is a deterrent. In the case of spree killings or serial killers, I don't see how they would stop to consider the consequences for themselves. The most important thing is public safety. Can the safety of the public be assured otherwise? If locking someone up for life serves the purpose, then I would opt for that.

The only thing I would reserve the death penalty for is the crime of murder with the intent on disrupting our way of life, government or otherwise trying to bring about social unrest. Timothy McVeigh is a prime example. I would add to that terrorists and anyone else whose crime is the overthrow of our way of life.

I just don't see the benefit to society for killing others.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Given the choice of DP or life without parole in solitary (think where the Unabomber is living out the rest of his life), I'd take the DP.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> Given the choice of DP or life without parole in solitary (think where the Unabomber is living out the rest of his life), I'd take the DP.


1) Life without parole in solitary is cruel and unusual punishment.

2) Of course you would. That's because you are not a murderous sociopath. They want to live, be heard, use the appeal and parole process to exhibit themselves, torture their victims and families, and make more victims while behind bars.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Never inject facts into a good America bashing rant!!


How is discussion of the death penalty, America bashing?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) Life without parole in solitary is cruel and unusual punishment.
> 
> 2) Of course you would. That's because you are not a murderous sociopath. They want to live, be heard, use the appeal and parole process to exhibit themselves, torture their victims and families, and make more victims while behind bars.


I agree that life without parole in solitary is cruel and unusual, but the courts do not, which is why we have supermaxes. And how do you know I'm not a murderous sociopath?:devil:


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Never* inject* facts into a good America bashing rant!!


You said "inject." Heh, heh.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

MaxBuck said:


> Add to that the long delay between conviction and execution (and even the delay between arrest and conviction) and I can't see how deterrence is possible.
> 
> If execution is to be a deterrent, IMO it needs to be implemented rapidly. Our legal system as it's currently configured seems incapable of rapidity.


Correct. It should be done within two years,following proper appeals, and it should be the expected, rather than exceptional punishment for murder.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Given the choice of DP or life without parole in solitary (think where the Unabomber is living out the rest of his life), I'd take the DP.


I am sorry, but I just can't let this go without comment anymore. You should probably check your acronyms for alternate meanings before using them lol.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^DP or life in prison? I believe life in prison at some point will end in DP!


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Just one of many wrong convictions that put an innocent man on death row. (There have been around 150 of such cases that have been discovered). The prosecution and the police ignored much in order to make themselves look good.
https://news.yahoo.com/wrongly-jailed-u-man-1-2-million-21-211255466.html

Of course the list is long. Does anyone remember the Ford Heights 4? Anthony Porter? It took a private university to clear 29 death row inmates in Illinois before anyone really looked into misconduct from police & prosecutors. Strange enough, there seem to be very few consequences for those that have been shown to have lied & hidden evidence. I myself would support Attempted murder & Kidnapping charges against these folks. Call it a "deterrent" perhaps?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

If at first you don't succeed....

Oklahoma carries out first execution since botch after Supreme Court denies stay



> Warner, who was , was originally supposed to be executed the same night as the high-profile execution of Clayton Lockett last year. But it was postponed - first for two weeks, then for much longer - after during his execution.


American determination at it's finest.

Never give up.

Improve your method and press forward!!


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> It's always a bit disheartening to hear of executions being carried out, even when there is absolutely no doubt that the person caught, convicted and executed is the one who committed the crime in question. However, I do feel that there are acts/crimes that do call for the application of such penalties. I'm sure if we were to talk with the families and friends of the victims of the depraved individuals committing such crimes, a certain majority of them would defend the continued use of the death penalty. The majority (but certainly not all) of those working in law enforcement and charged with processing the crime scenes and investigating the actions of those arrested for committing capital crimes are inclined toward the continued use of the death penalty...but, in a sense, they too are victims. One cannot easily dismiss such feeling when you are forced to deal with it.
> 
> I'm sure many will disagree with me regarding the death penalty, just as many of you would consider my perspectives on defending hearth and home to be arguably barbaric. If one of those 'drug crazed, 18 to 20 year old heathens, justonemore spoke of, breaks into my home in an effort to fund the continuation of their drug habit or to harm any member of my family, they will be greeted with the business end of a Beretta 1301 Tactical, 12Ga! Make no mistake about it, we are all eventually held accountable for our actions.


The problem, of course, is that we are relying on the government, which has a hard enough time adequately performing any number of mundane tasks that are within the grasp of most elementary school students, to decide who should live and who should die. I live in a state where more than a dozen people who were on death row ended up being exonerated and freed within the space of just a few years. No rational person can support the death penalty given this sort of fallibility.

Someone breaks into your house and you catch them in the act and they're posing a threat, by all means: Open up to protect you and yours, and I'll be the first to send you a note of congratulations. But after the fact when they're in handcuffs, no. At that point, they pose no threat to anyone.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

justonemore said:


> The U.S., one of the last few countries to carry out such punishment, has executed 3 people within 24 hours. They hold such respectable company as China, and Iran (and are only behind these 2 in exécutions). All this comes after a call from the International Community to not sell said execution drugs to the U.S. and therefore these states are using drugs from places they refuse to divulge. I myself am a dedicated "truth from government" fan and this seems that this is just another example of going behind the public's back in order to fullfill the desires of the government. If these people were so proud of what they were doing, why would they not stand up and be "Loud and proud"? Oh. Before any of the trolls come out and start crying as to victim's rights, I have not stated (nor will I ever) that the victim's shouldn't be considered. The fact is that state sponsered murder, should it be allowed at all, should be under exact régulations that are clear and consice versus running wild at the state level with the states hiding how they use taxpayer money.


Hey, its a start.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> The problem is, the system is so fallible. End of day, society shouldn't be deciding who lives and who dies any more than murderers should be deciding who lives and who dies.


LOL well that leaves the mob. Clearly logic is the victim here.

Law enforcement and the dispensing of justice are proper spheres of government (societal) activity, fallible as they may be. But in your outline above neither execution (who dies) nor any alternative (Who lives) is permissible. In fact the only possible means to the end you describe is anarchy.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Hitch said:


> LOL well that leaves the mob. Clearly logic is the victim here.
> 
> Law enforcement and the dispensing of justice are proper spheres of government (societal) activity, fallible as they may be. But in your outline above neither execution (who dies) nor any alternative (Who lives) is permissible. In fact the only possible means to the end you describe is anarchy.


Ack, you're sucking me in...

No, the logical extension is certainly not anarchy. I can't fathom how you reached that conclusion. There are plenty of societies that don't have the death penalty that are plenty more civilized than we are here in the U.S. To suggest that you need the death penalty to prevent anarchy is a foolish proposition.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Maybe you forgot what you posted Rock ;

*society shouldn't be deciding who lives and who dies

*_Or perhaps you just didnt think it through._


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Hitch said:


> Maybe you forgot what you posted Rock ;
> 
> *society shouldn't be deciding who lives and who dies
> 
> *_Or perhaps you just didnt think it through._


You have completely lost me. I have no idea of what you mean or how you got there.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^ Hitch, I would miss you if you were gone. Please consider editing this before it's too late.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Okay, I believe I posted a week ago that we were not going to be allowing fighting in the internet.

Hitch and Rollandrock need to stop it now. Both of you may want to check for PMs.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Apologies to all. For real.


----------

