I apologize if someone has already started a topic about this murder and the benefits/cons of the death penalty as a result.


I was watching a documentary on HBO the other night and was just completely sickened by what I watched. I cannot get it out of my head, so maybe this will help me.

The documentary showed white men butchering a black man. One white guy lay across the victims legs while the other white man stabbed the black guy 67 times in the head, throat, and chest. I honestly see no reason why we allow these men to continue to live with this video tape evidence. For those of you out there who are against the death penalty in all cases, can you give me a reason why we should allow these men to live? Keep in mind that the man who did the actual stabbing was in prison for murdereing a man when he was 18 years old. Troy Kell is this monsters name. He shot a man 6 times in the face in an apparent robbery. He made up some lame excuse about him "bothering" a girl friend of his.


When he went to court for the second homicide, he told his guards that he was gonna get an emmy, or something to that effect, for the performance he was about to put on in court. He then went out and tearfully apologized to the victims father and brother. While he was being interviewed on video for the documentary he also cried some crocodile tears while expressing his grief and blaming the system for what he had become.

Why should this man, specifically, be allowed to breathe any longer? There can be no doubt the man is guilty of cold blooded, premeditated murder. Since the documenatry was made, he has attacked and severely beaten another man almost to death while he awaits his date with the executioner. This case leaves me very disturbed and confused with our society.


*I do not mean he is a literal monster. I was speaking figuratively.

In order to avoid any confusion, Troy Kell has been given the death sentence for the second murder. I just dont understand how anyone would fight for this man not to receive his punishment.

Why should this man, specifically, be allowed to breathe any longer? The only reason I can think of is so he will be haunted by the gruesome murder he commited. Otherwise I have no problem with the DP in this case.

I think jailing is just as inhumane as the DP so no probelms there.

The main problem I have with the Death Penalty is that it could be applied to an innocent. If this man is an unrepentant and well documented killer with no doubts then hes fair game.

I think you know how I feel about this subject, Havok!

I think you also know how I feel on the subject, HaVok. I am against the death penalty, not just in cases where there might be some doubt, not just in cases where the crime isn't that heinous, but in all cases.

Havok thanks for the post and it just proves what I have been argueing all along. Once a killer allways a killer, it reminds me of a tigger that kills a human once the taste is there they will keep on killing. These killers lose the fear of justice and also find power in killing, so they have nothing to lose.

Originally posted by mad dog
Once a killer allways a killer

I trust you know that this is not a true assessment...

Evakian I was playing on words alittle, a killer can never take back a death they have caused. I should have said "once a violent criminal allways a violent criminal" and jail just puts salt in an allready painfull wound.

A dead man kills no more.
Hang the bastard!

Originally posted by HaVok
Why should this man, specifically, be allowed to breathe any longer?

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
I have no problem with the DP in this case.

Originally posted by rendova
I think you know how I feel about this subject

Originally posted by mad dog
they have nothing to lose.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
Hang the bastard!

What do you believe you are accomplishing by having this man executed?

Originally posted by Evakian
What do you believe you are accomplishing by having this man executed?

Making him pay for his horrendous crime. Sounds simple but there's many who want to read more into it I guess. Like Dan said, a dead man kills no more. So, in fact, the DP IS a deterent in its own way.

Originally posted by rendova
Making him pay for his horrendous crime.

"The ultimate punishment", taking someone's life is a greivous crime, but taking another as retribution is extreme, why should any crime be worthy of someone losing their life as vengeance?

Sounds simple but there's many who want to read more into it I guess.

Deciding whether to kill a person is no trivial matter.

Like Dan said, a dead man kills no more. So, in fact, the DP IS a deterent in its own way.

There are other forms of deterrents that could be taken, why go for having government sanctioned and sponsored murder?

Originally posted by Evakian
What do you believe you are accomplishing by having this man executed? What is being accomplished by letting this man live? He has repeatedly shown himself to be a sociopath. He can and will kill again if given the opportunity.

With someone who has shown a predilecition to murder like this man, how does letting this man live benefit society?


To answer your question. Society, as a whole, can breathe easier knowing that there is one less remorseless killer in the world. Thats a benefit, IMO.

There are other forms of deterrents that could be taken, why go for having government sanctioned and sponsored murder?

It's not murder, Evak, but judicial homicide. In other words, IMO, just payment and retribution for the in-fact MURDER that this man cold-bloodedly committed!

Originally posted by HaVoK
What is being accomplished by letting this man live? He has repeatedly shown himself to be a sociopath. He can and will kill again if given the opportunity.

However likely that upon his release would result in some violent crime, you can never know that for sure. There are other forms besides execution to keep him from doing so.

With someone who has shown a predilecition to murder like this man, how does letting this man live benefit society?

It is not about the weighing of the beneficial aspects to be gained, but the negative ones to be burdened with by having government sanctioned systematic murder, especially when the society does not flinch at the atrocity.

To answer your question. Society, as a whole, can breathe easier knowing that there is one less remorseless killer in the world. Thats a benefit, IMO.

And be laden by the guilt of validating killing another human being, and be provided work of burying the corpse as a reminder.

Originally posted by Evakian
However likely that upon his release would result in some violent crime, you can never know that for sure. There are other forms besides execution to keep him from doing so.
No, you can never know for sure. Miracles do happen. However, you can look at his life history and make a highly educated guess. Then you could decide whether the risk of having this man murder again is worth it or not.



Originally posted by Evakian

It is not about the weighing of the beneficial aspects to be gained, but the negative ones to be burdened with by having government sanctioned systematic murder, especially when the society does not flinch at the atrocity. So are you saying that society is not as affected by having a murderer terrorizing them as having their government set a punishment for these crimes and carrying them out? That doesnt make too much sense to me, if you are saying this.


Originally posted by Evakian

And be laden by the guilt of validating killing another human being, and be provided work of burying the corpse as a reminder. I dont know about you, but i have never had the burden of burying a corpse. However, if that were the price i would have to pay to ensure that a murderer such as this wouldnt have the opportunity to murder my sister or mother whenever the feeling hit him, i would gladly do so.

Also, IMO, we validate killing another human everytime an abortion is performed. I realize that there are many who do not agree with this opinion, but its how i feel.

Laden with guilt?

Goodness, Evak, how many of sister Helen Prejean's books have you read?

SHE'S the one who ought to feel guilty, meddling in cases where a just sentence has already been handed down and trying to make us DP supporters look like barbarians and animals because we believe that if someone wantonly and with malice aforethought, takes a life, then that person should die?

She can go peddle papers and hope that SHE'S never a victim of some of the lowlives she feels so sorry for.

Isn't she the one who doesn't even want to know about what crimes these people committed, saying it has "no bearing" on the case at hand??

Originally posted by HaVoK
No, you can never know for sure. Miracles do happen. However, you can look at his life history and make a highly educated guess. Then you could decide whether the risk of having this man murder again is worth it or not.

I wouldn't say someone not killing another is "miraculous", and I hardly doubt that man will have the opportunity to murder again when secure in an insitution or prison.

So are you saying that society is not as affected by having a murderer terrorizing them as having their government set a punishment for these crimes and carrying them out? That doesnt make too much sense to me, if you are saying this.

Which is why I am not.

I dont know about you, but i have never had the burden of burying a corpse.

Seeing how that statement was directed at society, not an individual, and your last passage above this one, I call to question your reading comprehension.

However, if that were the price i would have to pay to ensure that a murderer such as this wouldnt have the opportunity to murder my sister or mother whenever the feeling hit him, i would gladly do so.

Some of these people are born with certain mental imbalances that drive them to commit crimes such as murder, in a situation where this could somehow be identified, would you abort the gestating child/possible future murderer to protect your mother or sister from getting abused or slain? Surely he has done no wrong yet, such is not the case with Mr. Kell, but he is being controlled by the same carnal malfunctions that would possibly drive Mr. Kell to this next murder.

There are alternatives to execution that protect society from the clutches of criminals.

Also, IMO, we validate killing another human everytime an abortion is performed. I realize that there are many who do not agree with this opinion, but its how i feel.

Are we going to discuss abortion, or talk about the death penalty?
Both are interesting topics, but simultaneous taking on of the issues doesn't give them room to be explored fully.

Originally posted by rendova
Laden with guilt?

Yes, they are criminals, but that doesn't dismiss some degree of guilt for executing them, whatever their crime, as they are still human beings.

Goodness, Evak, how many of sister Helen Prejean's books have you read?

None, but it is my understanding she is a prominent voice on the issue, through her literature and work for abolition of the death penalty.

SHE'S the one who ought to feel guilty

A nun who runs an organization to help victims of violence, and has made her voice heard on the death penalty through academic research, has not that much to be very guilty of in this respect.

meddling in cases where a just sentence has already been handed down

Why is it a just sentence? She disagrees and makes you know she can, she has the right to express in that manner in America.

and trying to make us DP supporters look like barbarians and animals because we believe that if someone wantonly and with malice aforethought, takes a life, then that person should die?

And those that practice execution, do so with malice aforethought, and take a life.

She can go peddle papers and hope that SHE'S never a victim of some of the lowlives she feels so sorry for.

If she is the prey of a criminal, do you believe she would change her stance on killing that man?

Isn't she the one who doesn't even want to know about what crimes these people committed, saying it has "no bearing" on the case at hand??

Their crimes have supreme bearing on their punishment and rehabilitation, but to disdain the meriting of making them worthy of getting slain for their crime does not require knowledge of the case, as her stance would involve a perpetual disagreement with the action itself.

Originally posted by Evakian
I wouldn't say someone not killing another is "miraculous", and I hardly doubt that man will have the opportunity to murder again when secure in an insitution or prison.He has already commited one murder "when secure in an institution or prison". So where does your doubt come from?


Originally posted by Evakian

Which is why I am not.So what are you saying?


Originally posted by Evakian

Seeing how that statement was directed at society, not an individual, and your last passage above this one, I call to question your reading comprehension. You speak for society all you want. I do have to wonder what qualifies you to do so. I speak for myself.


Originally posted by Evakian

Some of these people are born with certain mental imbalances that drive them to commit crimes such as murder, in a situation where this could somehow be identified, would you abort the gestating child/possible future murderer to protect your mother or sister from getting abused or slain? Surely he has done no wrong yet, such is not the case with Mr. Kell, but he is being controlled by the same carnal malfunctions that would possibly drive Mr. Kell to this next murder. No, I cannot justify punishing someone for something they might do, only for what they have done. Troy Kell IS a murderer. There is no doubt.


Originally posted by Evakian

There are alternatives to execution that protect society from the clutches of criminals.Sure there are. None are as final as execution though.


Originally posted by Evakian

Are we going to discuss abortion, or talk about the death penalty?
Both are interesting topics, but simultaneous taking on of the issues doesn't give them room to be explored fully. You're right to a point. However, using one to point out the similarities of the other within the same topic shouldnt be too much for you.

In the future, if you dont want to discuss something within a topic, ignore it.

Originally posted by HaVoK
He has already commited one murder "when secure in an institution or prison". So where does your doubt come from?

Then that leaves much to be desired out of that prison's security measures and personnel.

Will killing him appease you? If so, can you elaborate as to why having the government practice execution, and having society support it, is a positive from your view?

So what are you saying?

It is not about the weighing of the beneficial aspects to be gained, but the negative ones to be burdened with by having government sanctioned systematic murder, especially when the society does not flinch at the atrocity.

That rather plainly spells out what I said. I am not going to raise conflict over the benefits that can be recieved out of the death penalty, but discuss the negatives of the moral dilemma.

Where in that passage is your assertion So are you saying that society is not as affected by having a murderer terrorizing them as having their government set a punishment for these crimes and carrying them out?.

You speak for society all you want.

I am not speaking for society, I am speaking about society, once again you raise argument over nonexistant points in my rebuttals.

No, I cannot justify punishing someone for something they might do, only for what they have done. Troy Kell IS a murderer. There is no doubt.

This particular point was brought out of concern for his future wrongdoings, in tandem with the question about the fetus that may one day murder. Why does separation from society, punishment, and rehabilitation not suffice...why have him slain?

Sure there are. None are as final as execution though.

Is execution appealing because its efficiency in preventing further crimes from said individual?

You're right to a point. However, using one to point out the similarities of the other within the same topic shouldnt be too much for you.

Bringing up that issue may have spiraled the discourse to be solely about abortion, you are welcome to discuss the pros and cons of having government sanctioned abortion, but that doesn't seem the topic at hand.

Yes, they are criminals, but that doesn't dismiss some degree of guilt for executing them, whatever their crime, as they are still human beings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes--barely. Their actions clearly show that they are about as "human" as a rabid dog--except a rabid dog doesn't realize what it's doing. THEY do--the criminal--unless they are so mentally incompetent that they don't understand the nature of their acts. In this case, this scenario is clearly untrue.


A nun who runs an organization to help victims of violence, and has made her voice heard on the death penalty through academic research, has not that much to be very guilty of in this respect.
__________________________________________-
IMO, she is a misguided woman, believing in the good in all.
Poor fool, nothing could be further from the truth. She's not guilty of anything--she is just blind.

(Why doesn't she want to look at crime scene photos? She WANTS to be blind.)

Originally posted by Evakian
Then that leaves much to be desired out of that prison's security measures and personnel.

Will killing him appease you? If so, can you elaborate as to why having the government practice execution, and having society support it, is a positive from your view?
It's not about appeasing me personally. Why have any punishment for anything at all if you cannot or will not have a deterent that will make sure the crime will never happen again?

Once again I ask you since you avoided the question the first time. He has already commited one murder "when secure in an institution or prison". So where does your doubt come from?





Originally posted by Evakian

That rather plainly spells out what I said. I am not going to raise conflict over the benefits that can be recieved out of the death penalty, but discuss the negatives of the moral dilemma.

Where in that passage is your assertion So are you saying that society is not as affected by having a murderer terrorizing them as having their government set a punishment for these crimes and carrying them out?.
I understand. I wouldnt want to answer the question either.


Originally posted by Evakian

This particular point was brought out of concern for his future wrongdoings, in tandem with the question about the fetus that may one day murder. Why does separation from society, punishment, and rehabilitation not suffice...why have him slain? Who cares about concern for his future wrongdoings when there is no punishment for his past wrongdoings. He was already in prison for life without possiblity of parole. What more can be done without the death penalty?



Originally posted by Evakian

Is execution appealing because its efficiency in preventing further crimes from said individual? Yes.

However, lets not sugar coat it and call them simply "crimes". We are talking about further heinous murders, which i do not feel the word "crimes" justify.

Originally posted by rendova
Yes--barely. Their actions clearly show they are about as "human" as a rabid dog--except a rabid dog doesn't realize what it's doing. THEY do--the criminal--unless they are so mentally incompetent that they don't understand the nature of their acts. In this case, this scenario is clearly untrue.

Barely? So you accept that they are still human?

(Why doesn't she want to look at crime scene photos? She WANTS to be blind.)

Perhaps not everyone enjoys looking at mangled corpulent masses laid out in those particular photos?
If looking at those photos is going to make you be drawn to ask for the murder of the perpetrator, there is a problem.

Originally posted by Evakian


If looking at those photos is going to make you be drawn to ask for the murder of the perpetrator, there is a problem. Wonder why the jurors are shown these pictures then. Seems someone thinks people can be influenced when viewing actual scenes of the crime.

I dont believe the jurors would ask for the "murder" of the perpetrator. However, they may recommend the death penalty.

Ok, I'll say it. No, they are not human. Anyone who can act in such a manner, not once but twice, is not a member of the same species as you or me.

************************************************
Perhaps not everyone enjoys looking at mangled corpulent masses laid out in those particular photos?
If looking at those photos is going to make you be drawn to ask for the murder of the perpetrator, there is a problem.
************************************************** **

Evak, they say that one picture is worth a thousand words.

Perhaps the good sister should look at the evidence--exactly what it is and see with her own eyes, exactly what filth of this sort is capable of.

Until she does so, she is laboring under a misguided and ignorant delusion. In other words, she does not know, as she has not seen. Nor does she want to, which, IMO, speaks volumes.

Originally posted by HaVoK
It's not about appeasing me personally. Why have any punishment for anything at all if you cannot or will not have a deterent that will make sure the crime will never happen again?

Why cut your fingernails? They will grow back. And you don't remove them entirely because they are of some value.

Once again I ask you since you avoided the question the first time. He has already commited one murder "when secure in an institution or prison". So where does your doubt come from?

Originally posted by HaVok
In the future, if you dont want to discuss something within a topic, ignore it.

So you've brought up the fact that he killed someone in prison, congratulations, but you've changed nothing about the argument in the process! Cheers.

To address your question-
Where does doubt come from? Well being in a high security prison, separated from society, observed and cared for by keepers of such an asylum, often brings one to conclude that crimes occuring at those criminals hands are less likely to happen. The fact that he killed someone ends doubt and calls to question the state of the prison system management.

I understand. I wouldnt want to answer the question either.

I answered your question, and you're proving more and more that you've reading comprehension difficulties.

Who cares about concern for his future wrongdoings when there is no punishment for his past wrongdoings.

As you've stated-
He was already in prison for life without possiblity of parole.
-Ergo, he has recieved a form of punishment, as well as a detriment to prevent him from further crimes.

What more can be done without the death penalty?

A higher security prison with more features, as he clearly is not being contained in that prison, nor being studied, rehabilitated, or being given proper amounts of labor, isolation, medication, counseling, and other forms of occupying his time while he serves his punishment.

However, lets not sugar coat it and call them simply "crimes". We are talking about further heinous murders, which i do not feel the word "crimes" justify.

You are talking about further heinous murders, I am talking about crimes in a general sense. As I wish to discuss and weigh why society does not find the death penalty wrong, and you can be put to death for crimes, not just murder. There are thieves, rapists, arsonists, and other wrongdoers in jail, not all of them are murders, however.

Originally posted by HaVoK
Wonder why the jurors are shown these pictures then. Seems someone thinks people can be influenced when viewing actual scenes of the crime.

They need to examine the crime in order to determine a punishment if they are guilty, as well as decide whether they are guilty or not. The nun was not one of those jurors, and is making the philosophical stand against the moral predicament risen from the death penalty, seeing the pictures is neither pleasant nor mandatory in her argument of killing them or not.

I dont believe the jurors would ask for the "murder" of the perpetrator. However, they may recommend the death penalty.

Yet the two are not necessarily separable.

Evak and Havok,
I should be honest and tell you both plainly that I fear "people" of this kind.
You should too.
They are not human, they are monsters. To them, the act of killing mean no more to them than you or me stepping on an ant.
If they should get out, if they are not watched continously while in prison, they will kill again.
And it just might be you, me, or even sister Helen.
And believe me, they would not blink an eye.
I say, these killers have got to go, and the sooner the better.

Originally posted by rendova
Ok, I'll say it. No, they are not human. Anyone who can act in such a manner, not once but twice, is not a member of the same species as you or me.

The determining factor deciding whether they are a member of our species is a biological one, not one based off of actions.

Because of their despicable actions, one can argue very well that they are indeed not "a member of our people", or civilization, or some other phrasing that suites it, as it were.

Until she does so, she is laboring under a misguided and ignorant delusion. In other words, she does not know, as she has not seen. Nor does she want to, which, IMO, speaks volumes.

You seem to fail to realize that she is taking the stand of having the death penalty wrong ad infinitum. Regardless of crime, she believes no good is achieved by executing someone. Seeing gruesome photos is not a requisite for making such an argument.

Originally posted by Evakian




You seem to fail to realize that she is taking the stand of having the death penalty wrong ad infinitum. Regardless of crime, she believes no good is achieved by executing someone. Seeing gruesome photos is not a requisite for making such an argument.

I say again, she is an ignorant and misguided woman. She is also a coward. Why not look and see? What is she afraid of?
This is akin to wishing to study Mozart without hearing his music.
Maybe she doesn't want to "study" them. Does she wish to "help" them then? They are beyond help. They missed the boat a long long time ago. She needs to wake up and smell the coffee.
Behavior indicates personality. Instead of listening to their phony pious platitudes she ought to look and see what they did and who they ARE.
Gonna sound like darth now--DAMMIT!!!!

Originally posted by rendova
I should be honest and tell you both plainly that I fear "people" of this kind.
You should too.

I think you'd have to trek quite some way to find someone who is not fearful of a murderer in some way.

They are not human, they are monsters. To them, the act of killing mean no more to them than you or me stepping on an ant.

Are you a murderer? That sort of assertion cannot be painted on all killers, they do it for different reasons, at different times, in different scenarios and pressures. Some may do it out of a imbalance that drives them to commit such atrocities, others may do it for money, or protection, and so on. Others may do it as a source of power. The list goes on and on, it is a very complex topic in human psychology, but not so simple as saying they are stepping on ants when they go through with murder.

If they should get out, if they are not watched continously while in prison, they will kill again.

A likely scenario, which is why we must work to remedy that through scientific research of their psyche, and reforms in the nature of the justice system and prison system.

And believe me, they would not blink an eye.

Not so true, they are not so ravenous as to rampage about slaying everyone in sight the moment they step out of the gates of a prison, it can be a cold, calculated act, or one that arises from a state of mind or situation, but they will surely be more to the type of action being done than mindless and unrestrained bruality at all times.

Originally posted by rendova
I say again, she is an ignorant and misguided woman. She is also a coward. Why not look and see? What is she afraid of?

Perhaps the same reasons anyone would find distaste for them?

This is akin to wishing to study Mozart without hearing his music.
Maybe she doesn't want to "study" them. Does she wish to "help" them then?

Have I not been clear?
You seem to fail to realize that she is taking the stand of having the death penalty wrong ad infinitum. Regardless of crime, she believes no good is achieved by executing someone. Seeing gruesome photos is not a requisite for making such an argument.
She doesn't need to "study" the murders or murderers at all to take the stand that she is against the death penalty, and the cons of it.

They are beyond help.

Unless every single criminal in history has committed crimes congruous to their previous ones, that can't possibly be true.

They missed the boat a long long time ago.

Perhaps they've no legs with which to get on the boat?

Behavior indicates personality. Instead of listening to their phony pious platitudes she ought to look and see what they did and who they ARE.
Gonna sound like darth now--DAMMIT!!!!

How does examining who they are as individuals justify their being put to death?

Are you a murderer? That sort of assertion cannot be painted on all killers, they do it for different reasons, at different times, in different scenarios and pressures. Some may do it out of a imbalance that drives them to commit such atrocities, others may do it for money, or protection, and so on. Others may do it as a source of power. The list goes on and on, it is a very complex topic in human psychology, but not so simple as saying they are stepping on ants when they go through with murder.
************************************************** *
Evak........imbalance? I have never heard of such a thing. do you mean mental incompetency? If that were so,, he'd be in a hospital for the criminally insane, not prison.
Money?
Hang him. One of the worst sorts of murders. I have zero sympathy for such. Please see Cameron Todd Willingham, et all. absolute scum. Or do you mean felony murder, as in armed robbery accompanied by murder? A capital offense in most states, and with good reason. No need to kill the person as you rob them too.
Protection? This is not even a crime, it is called self-defense.
Source of power--do you mean a war-like figure? Or some sort of controlling freak of nature like BTK? a psychopathic sociopath? The kind that kills at random? more out there like that than you realize!

Originally posted by rendova
Evak........imbalance? I have never heard of such a thing.

Chemical imbalances causing mental instabilities occur for a great many things, including the criminally insane.

do you mean mental incompetency? If that were so,, he'd be in a hospital for the criminally insane, not prison.

I mean cerebral malfunction.

Money?
Hang him. One of the worst sorts of murders. I have zero sympathy for such. Please see Cameron Todd Willingham, et all. absolute scum. Or do you mean felony murder, as in armed robbery accompanied by murder? A capital offense in most states, and with good reason. No need to kill the person as you rob them too.

What if they are paid to kill, a soldier of fortune?

Protection? This is not even a crime, it is called self-defense.

Not really, defending/protecting your neighborhood from thugs, protecting your family from hoodlums, doesn't mean they are attacking you (which is construed as self-defense), if I kill my neighbor because he owns a firearm and I percieve that as a threat, but he has done no harm, I am still murdering for protection of myself, by my skewed and inane criminal mind's reasoning in this hypothetical situation.

Source of power--do you mean a war-like figure? Or some sort of controlling freak of nature like BTK? a psychopathic sociopath? The kind that kills at random? more out there like that than you realize!

Source of power as in murder serves to feed their "ego", or functions as an aphrodisiac, or they murder because it makes them feel comfortable or mighty, that sort of thing.

You seem to fail to realize that she is taking the stand of having the death penalty wrong ad infinitum. Regardless of crime, she believes no good is achieved by executing someone. Seeing gruesome photos is not a requisite for making such an argument.
*********************************************
Let me ask a question.
Why does she believe this?
I am curious and would like to know her reasons, other than getting her name in the paper and helping raise money for her church?
Exactly where did those proceeds go, anyway, for that ridiculous book she wrote, "Dead Man Walking"?
To the VIcTIMS??
It is to laugh.

Originally posted by rendova
Let me ask a question.
Why does she believe this?

As a catholic nun, we can make an inference that her disdain for the death penalty comes from the belief that human life is sacred, which helps sprout the reasoning for the Church's stance on abortion, the death penalty, and the like.

I understand that, and I find it really rather sad that she doesn't show the same amount of sympathy and concern for the victims.
But perhaps I am misreading her. This is what it LOOKS like, tho.

Behavior indicates personality.:)

Originally posted by rendova
I understand that, and I find it really rather sad that she doesn't show the same amount of sympathy and concern for the victims.

She founded the Survive foundation, it is an organization that offers counseling for victims and the families of victims of violence, so we can say she does extend sympathy and concern in that manner.

Behavior indicates personality.:)

Often, but not always. :)

Capital punishment is never the answerl

There are the usual reasons it is wrong; innocent people executed, minorities more likely to be executed than whites, sentence depends on which state you committed the crime in, etc.

Then there are the other reasons. There is no restitution to the family of the victim. There is no possibility of redemption. It is not cost effective. It makes us, as represented by the state, killers.

It would be better to imprison the person and have him work so as to provide at least some restitution for the family of the victim. Let him be imprisoned at hard labor, segregated from the rest of the prison population.

Execution is final and destroys any hope of redemption. The executed person can never atone for his crimes. Everyone, even hardened murderers still has humanity and execution ends that humanity.

It is estimated to cost about $25,000 to house a prisoner for a year. It cost almost $2,000,000 before a person is executed. That means that for the cost of executing a peson we could imprison him for eighty years. Very, very few prisoners live eighty years behind bars.

The death penalty does not act as a deterent. In fact there are statistics to show that it increased violent crime. In New York City there were an average of two additional murders in months immediately following an execution. In pre-Victorian England the penalty for pick pocketing was death and yet people picked pockets within sight of people being hung from the gibbet. Violence begets violence.

When you execute a prisoner you are committing the same act for which you are taking his life. It may be wrapped in legalize but it is still the taking of a human life.

The Death Penalty should be ended.

Originally posted by Frogger
It is estimated to cost about $25,000 to house a prisoner for a year. It cost almost $2,000,000 before a person is executed. That means that for the cost of executing a peson we could imprison him for eighty years. Very, very few prisoners live eighty years behind bars.

I question why it costs so much to house a prisoner annually, and the exorbitant funds required to put them to death, however serving as a good deterrent, seem rather exacerbated themselves.

Violence begets violence.

Indeed,
It will never stop, it is a part of humanity to be violent, always has been. Executing criminals will not stop future criminals from doing their misdeeds, perhaps may squelch it to a minute degree, but never bring an end to it.

When you execute a prisoner you are committing the same act for which you are taking his life. It may be wrapped in legalize but it is still the taking of a human life.

Gazing upon their actions, seeing the damage caused, will make people angry and act out of spite to destroy them. Society as a whole proves themselves barely above the level of these miscreants by killing them as revenge. The cycle is never ending...

The Death Penalty should be ended.

"Some states are trying to put an end to the death penalty, my state (Texas) is putting in an express line!" - Jeff Foxworthy

I'm against the death penalty for many reasons. One reason is that I want no part of being an executioner. When society kills someone it's done on my behalf, and the behalf of all of us. I wish to kill no one, not even the people who've committed unspeakablly horrible crimes.

I've asked this before I think, but I don't remember if anyone responded...

If you are for the death penalty, could you be the executioner? Could you be the person who does the deed? Would you want your child to be an executioner?

Is it right to ask society to do something we're not willing to do ourselves?

Capital punishment is never the answerl

Wrong! Capital punishment is always the answer! If your kid get's uppity at the grocery store checkout? Capital punishment. Neighbor won't mow his yard? Capital punishment. Some asshole cuts you off at the freeway? You guessed it. Kid with jeans falling down to round his knees wants to date your daughter? Oh yeah!

We can solve the whole world's problems with one simple, easy to implement answer.

Originally posted by Vilepagan


I've asked this before I think, but I don't remember if anyone responded...

If you are for the death penalty, could you be the executioner? Could you be the person who does the deed? Would you want your child to be an executioner?

Is it right to ask society to do something we're not willing to do ourselves? I believe that I could be the executioner if called on to do so. Of course, I would want to reserve the right to do my own research into the case and come to my own conclusion as to guilt or innocence. If there were a doubt in my head I would not pull the switch, no matter what. This case that I have brought to you would be a no doubter for me. I would pull the switch without a second thought.


I dont have children so i cannot honestly answer that question. I guess it would depend on my child's mental makeup and desire to become an executioner.

No i do not believe it is fair for me to ask others to do something i myself wouldnt do.

Originally posted by HaVoK
I believe that I could be the executioner if called on to do so. Of course, I would want to reserve the right to do my own research into the case and come to my own conclusion as to guilt or innocence. If there were a doubt in my head I would not pull the switch, no matter what.

As an executioner I would assume the luxury of deciding each case for yourself wouldn't be part of the job description. :D


This case that I have brought to you would be a no doubter for me. I would pull the switch without a second thought.

Seems very guilty to me too.


I dont have children so i cannot honestly answer that question. I guess it would depend on my child's mental makeup and desire to become an executioner.

An honest answer, thanks. :)


No i do not believe it is fair for me to ask others to do something i myself wouldnt do.

Neither do I, and since I wouldn't want to be an executioner, I won't ask anyone else to be one.

Don't get me wrong I am completely against the DP without a combination of DNA, video and everything else that is needed for 100% proof.

I just think jailing someone for life is just as cruel as murdering them.

The death penalty is murder. You see the state never really outlaws anything. It just regulates them. Drugs, Slavery and Murder are just some of its many enterprises.

BTW this movie is great (by the guy who did "fast, sheap and out of control) -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0192335/

Vile, to answer your question---

First off, we discussed the varying degrees and types of homicide on the "Death Penalty" thread over at the Politics forum.
If any of my kids were the victim of a premeditated murder with aggravating circumstances, yes, I would pull the switch. I would gain no pleasure from doing so, and it would likely sicken me, but I'd do it.

Because the guy or woman sitting in the chair had of their own free will taken a life without granting my child the benefit of a trial or one single chance to defend themselves.

Something the person in the chair certainly had.

Would I ask my own kids to do such a thing?
They have already said that they would--if I or my husband or one of their siblings were the victim.

On a side note, the executioner/s are paid for this job. They are frequently unidentified. They are drawn from a pool of prison workers or volunteers. In Florida, for years, the executioner wore a black hood and was picked up by the side of a road and then taken to the prison. This person receieved $600 per execution for pulling a switch. (in states where they have the chair, oftentimes this person is also an electrician.). The Florida person's identity was never revealed but many believed she was a woman as they could see her mascaraed eyes thru the eye slits of the hood. After receiving her pay, she was taken to the same lonely road where she was picked up.

Good argument, Frogger. You state your case clearly and powerfully.
You have almost convinced me. Almost.:)

Originally posted by Evakian
"The ultimate punishment", taking someone's life is a greivous crime, but taking another as retribution is extreme, why should any crime be worthy of someone losing their life as vengeance?

by letting a violent criminal live are we not leaving the chance for another death to happen? I would rather see the violent criminal put to death then see a non-violent person get killed because we choose not to deal a punishment.



Deciding whether to kill a person is no trivial matter.

you are correct, but in this case I would say it is open and shut.



There are other forms of deterrents that could be taken, why go for having government sanctioned and sponsored murder?

Those "other" deterrents have proven they do not work. As a wise man once said{Dan} a dead man will not kill again, simple and very effective.

Originally posted by Mad Dog

by letting a violent criminal live are we not leaving the chance for another death to happen? I would rather see the violent criminal put to death then see a non-violent person get killed because we choose not to deal a punishment.

Mad Dog, do you honestly think the primary reason for executing people is to prevent their killing again? We execute people as a form of punishment. It is a catharsis. You killed and we are going to get even by killing you. It has very little, if anything to do with protecting future victims.

Frogger I disagree, yes it is a punishment but at the same time it does stop future crime, as this case very clearly showed. If this guy had been put to death he would not have brought death again. I have a very good friend and relatives that work with violent criminals every day and they allways tell me the same thing, these types of people never change. I am with you and others about a perfect system that would lock these VC up without any chance of them committing a crime. The problem is that system does not exist and I hgihly doubt it ever will in our life time. We are at a catch 22, but I still feel very strongly that the only true working punishment for killers{100% proven} is the DP.

mad dog

He should never have been in the general population. Violent prisoners should be segregated from the rest of the prisoners.

Yes I agree, but that still doesn't take away his need for violence. If he had not beat this guy he would have went after a guard or someone else. Maybe we could just take all of these killers{100% proven} and throw them together on an island. Fly planes over and drop them there needs other then that just have boats driving around and anyone that trys to escape shoot on sight.

I watched the movie "Man On Fire" now there was some real justice served. One thing for sure those scum would never kidnap or murder again. What happen to men wearing pants and excepting reality, protection for society comes before protection for violent criminals. We need to bring back HARD LABOR also, maybe this would tire these thugs out.

Frogger please don't think I was saying you don't wear pants:) I am just getting sick of all this "stick up for Bundy he is human and has rights". In my opinion these types of thugs have flushed all there rights down the septic system of society when they decide to kill innocent people. We, as a growing over populate society, need to worry about those that will not kill our loved ones, not the beast that love to kill.

mad dog

I have made my views on capital punishment and why I am against it pretty clear and won't go into another long explaination at this time. Suffice it to say it is not solely because of what it does to the person being executed but what it also does to us as a society.

Originally posted by Frogger
mad dog

I have made my views on capital punishment and why I am against it pretty clear and won't go into another long explaination at this time. Suffice it to say it is not solely because of what it does to the person being executed but what it also does to us as a society. I think answers like the one above are intellectual cop outs.

What qualifies you to speak on the effects of capitol punishment on society? Not everyone in society is affected the same way, so how can you speak for society as a whole?


People need to speak about what they know, and the only thing any of us really know is how something affects our immediate world on issues like this, IMO.

Anyone following the case in Virginia wherein some people say that an innocent man may have been executed?
I forget his name but it's been all over the news.
If this is so, and it's highly doubtful as there was a mountain of evidence against this thug, then it will be the first time ever that an executed person will be proven innocent using scientific evidence....the governor of Virginia will be ordering new DNA testing soon....stay here for further updates on this.

Originally posted by HaVoK
I think answers like the one above are intellectual cop outs.

What qualifies you to speak on the effects of capitol punishment on society? Not everyone in society is affected the same way, so how can you speak for society as a whole?


People need to speak about what they know, and the only thing any of us really know is how something affects our immediate world on issues like this, IMO.

What qualaifies me to speak about how society is affected is the fact that I am a member of society. Using your line of reasoning no one would be able to speak about something they don't know from personal experience.

In that case, I think you had better stop speaking about the war in Iraq, abortion, any minority affairs (unless of course you are a member of a minority group), women's affairs, the situation in the Middle East and a host of other topics.

Originally posted by Frogger
What qualaifies me to speak about how society is affected is the fact that I am a member of society.

That goes both ways and when you say it will affect me badly if a killer is put to death, I am going to say you are VERY wrong.

I just {wed} lost a good friend to cancer they were recieving less then 500 a month while on their death bed. Mean while back at happy camp "killers Are Us" Charles Manson cost tax payers over 40,000 a year to keep alive. He gets 3 squares, TV, internet, pool table, schooling, clean showers, etc etc etc.... I think society needs to think hard about who we are protecting and who we are sh**ing on.

Originally posted by Frogger
mad dog

I have made my views on capital punishment and why I am against it pretty clear and won't go into another long explaination at this time. Suffice it to say it is not solely because of what it does to the person being executed but what it also does to us as a society.

Yes I agree, especially in this case it could have stopped another crime. In Texas it could have saved lives of guards. In many many other cases it could have saved many lives.

I am sorry about the loss of your friend, mad dog, but the treatment of Charles Manson had nothing to do with his loss. Blame the health industry, not the prison boards for what happened to your friend.

Originally posted by Frogger
I am sorry about the loss of your friend, mad dog, but the treatment of Charles Manson had nothing to do with his loss. Blame the health industry, not the prison boards for what happened to your friend.

Thanks Frogger, my point is that we treat the criminals better in this country then we do our sick. I would rather see my tax $ go to something worth while instead of seeing it go to a guy that doesn't give an ounce of crap to another human.