What do you guys think should be done with that soldier who was giving away secrets to that terrorist group(im very vague and not sure of the details, but it was on CNN). Should the laws be changed to make sure Traitors get just what they deserve (A round through the skull) or should he be locked away for a very long time.

This is just another way to examine the arguments surrounding capital punishment.
While I have supported the death penalty as punishment for various crimes, the longer I look at it, the more I begin to feel that for the vast sums of money involved in paying for a capital offense trial, (generally around a million $$ plus) and the length of time one spends on death row (typically a minimum of a decade), I am feeling more that " life in prison without the possibility of parole for any reason" is, if nothing else, a better deal all around. Prisons nationwide could put the resources currently spent on maintaining a death row - the special housing, the special guards, death chambers, etc - toward other things the prisons need. I've not changed my views on those that society has deemed "need killing", it's simply that I have decided the funds can be better spent elsewhere. No more vigils outside the prison with the death penalty proponets on one side, those opposing the same sentence on the other, no more media circus over the execution of yet another unrepentant felon, no more arguing that this one is mentally incapable of appreciating the severity of the crime, while that one is bat-shit crazy without massive doses of psychotropic medications, yadda, yadda.
Perhaps every 10 years or so the prison staff should be completely evacuated, all weapons removed from the premisis, the exterior doors welded shut & turn the prison population loose for 14 days within the walls. Anyone scaling the walls would be shot, those left alive after the 2 weeks would simply be returned to their cells. That might prove a novel approach to the issues of prison overcrowding.

If I'm not mistaken, treason still is a capital offense. Therefore, he can be executed if proven guilty. The question revolves around whether or not he can be proven guilty. Remember that our legal system (military tribunals being the exception) revolve around the "innocent until proven guilty" theory, and that it is commonly believed to be better to let any number of guilty persons go free than to convict the innocent.

traitor = death

Which is precisely another good reason to oppose the death penalty. Justice may fail - in fact it often does. And there is no resurrection for the innocents who were killed by mistake.

Death penalty has a purpose, the problem is the justice system. Even when a killer kills they find some loop hole to get them off. Then they look innocent even though they are NOT.

I do agree some one should be proven quilty without question, then it should be a quick fry/hanging/etc.... none of this wait ten years bullsh**.

the death penalty sucks.
why is it necessary? why are we such a bloodthirsty society that we still need vengeance like this? doesn't it just serve the same purpose to throw them in prison without hope of parole? it gets them out of society. they won't hurt anyone again. isn't that enough, or do we just need to have MORE people dead in the end? the death penalty doesn't fix anything. it doesn't undo any of the criminal's actions.
and then you might execute someone innocent. you can't pardon a corpse.

my solution to the death penalty is this:

The family of the victim should decide the fate of the killer if he is convicted, and then if they decide death, they should be able to perform the execution if they wanted to. A vast majority of victims familys want the killer put to death, yet we always see the families who want to spare the killer, who are against the DP. Just as when you watch the news you see crying soldiers and veterans against the war, when in reality those veterans against the war are a very small %.

Isn’t it interesting: commit treason and you get the death penalty; commit cold blooded murder and you only get thirty years to life (sometimes less).

Treason is a crime against one's nation. Murder is a crime against (typically) one individual. Both are capital offenses, both have circumstances in which the ultimate penalty is not enforced.

Originally posted by mad dog

I do agree some one should be proven quilty without question, then it should be a quick fry/hanging/etc.... none of this wait ten years bullsh**. Once again, if you have enough money they can never prove you guilty of anything completely unless you confess. So since this is an unfair practice that only benefits the rich, do away with the death penalty.

Originally posted by Travh20
my solution to the death penalty is this:

The family of the victim should decide the fate of the killer if he is convicted, and then if they decide death, they should be able to perform the execution if they wanted to.

A strange idea. The purpose of justice is precisely that tye victims of a crime should not seek vengeance since they are too involved to make a fair decision.


Last week I met a woman whose brother has been murdered fifteen years ago. He was savagely killed by her wife who stabbed him 22 times during his sleep ! This woman found the bloodless body of her brother next morning. You can imagine the shock and pain she felt.

The murderer was sent to jail for eleven years. The woman told me that, during all these years, she had a deep hate for this woman and said that if she met her again she would kill her.

And they met, by chance, in the street (the sentence was over and the murderer had been released one year before).
The woman told me that at the very instant when she saw her brother's murderer, her anger and hatred evaporated and she nearly felt pity for this woman who looked so miserable.

Astra that sucks, if someome killed my sister, wife, kid, etc... and was let out in 11 years, then I had the chance to meet them on the street????????????Wow beyond words, I would do my damn best to take them of the street permanently.

Originally posted by sputnik
the death penalty sucks.
why is it necessary? why are we such a bloodthirsty society that we still need vengeance like this? doesn't it just serve the same purpose to throw them in prison without hope of parole? it gets them out of society. they won't hurt anyone again. isn't that enough, or do we just need to have MORE people dead in the end? the death penalty doesn't fix anything. it doesn't undo any of the criminal's actions.
and then you might execute someone innocent. you can't pardon a corpse.

[1] Take out the trash why pay for a killer and give them free meals for the rest of there life. There victim didn't get a chance why should they?

[2] Why is getting rid of sh** called bloodthirsty vengeance?

[3]No, because they do escape, and they DO kill again, and "no parole" is a f**king joke.

[4]Tell that to the mother of a kid that is in jail for a small crime when he gets killed by the guy that raped and beat 10 women. Tell that to the wife down in Texas when the killers escaped and killed her husband. Why keep these scum bags alive they CAN NOT contribute to anything.

[5]This is where you are wrong lets say a killer escapes and kills again (which does happen, or they're just set free). Now if he/she was put to death then a crime would have been stopped.

[6] I do agree someone should be proven quilty without question like the Ice Man, Manson, etc...

Can I ask have you ever known someone that has been murdered, and known the killer? Killers are no different then bad animals they have killed and should be put down. Society will not except a mad dog running around why should we except a mad person(killer)?

Why waste tax dollars on scum when the money could go to someone that could put it to good use, old folks, disabled, kids etc...

Originally posted by Travh20
my solution to the death penalty is this:

The family of the victim should decide the fate of the killer if he is convicted, and then if they decide death, they should be able to perform the execution if they wanted to.
Since justice is supposed to be about retribution against someone who has wronged you, this would indeed be a suitable resolution.

While permitting the victim's family / significant others to make that ultimate choice in the punishment, they should not be required to do the deed themselves. These individuals do not need to be burdened with more grief & guilt over another's death, regardless of how well justified that execution might be. While the crime is against an individual, it is also against society, and society should bear the responsibility for removing the criminal - to a penal institution where the execution is handled by a well trained - and uninvolved - team.

Originally posted by mad dog
Society will not except a mad dog running around why should we except a mad person(killer)?
[/B]

What do you have against mad dogs, mad dog ?
;)

Astra LOL :D

I've got to post this TRAVH & MOPO AGREEEEEEEEEEEE.............

Travh I also like your idea, but one problem, what if the person that gets killed as no family. Should it then be up to the friends? majority? judge? etc......... Who gets to decide what happens to a killer that kills 8 call girls that have no family?

That's got to make you feel bad for Trav, regardless of how you might feel about him. Support from an acknowledged coward, and an ignorant one to boot? Nobody needs support that badly.

Ouch thats gotta hurt

Originally posted by mad dog
Astra LOL :D

I've got to post this TRAVH & MOPO AGREEEEEEEEEEEE.............


I never let my opinion of the poster interfere with my judgment of a post; I know a true statement when I see one. Unlike some, I don’t base my replies on personal bias.

An interesting point about the death penalty:

I was once involved in a discussion about that with two fellows who believed in it, and made the standardized arguments... but then I asked them that if all killers of innocent people should be killed themselves, what then should happen to the cops, judge, jury, and state-approved executioners if it's later shown they accidentally "murdered" an innocent suspect???

They took extreme offense that I had even broached the subject. From what I gathered before the conversation abruptly ended, was that they were not in favor of ANY punishment, let alone a death penalty... even in a case where cops or witnesses had lied under oath...

Just thought I'd share that experience with you... I find it very curious indeed...

Originally posted by In Odder Words
An interesting point about the death penalty:

I was once involved in a discussion about that with two fellows who believed in it, and made the standardized arguments... but then I asked them that if all killers of innocent people should be killed themselves, what then should happen to the cops, judge, jury, and state-approved executioners if it's later shown they accidentally "murdered" an innocent suspect???

They took extreme offense that I had even broached the subject. From what I gathered before the conversation abruptly ended, was that they were not in favor of ANY punishment, let alone a death penalty... even in a case where cops or witnesses had lied under oath...

Just thought I'd share that experience with you... I find it very curious indeed...

If you cant tell the difference between some thug slitting an old ladys throat for .25 cents and a jury dealing justice to that same scum, you got problems.

And who sometimes sits on those juries??? Thugs and criminals!!!

But I'll just BET yer the FIRST ta complain about... hung juries...

Where's the consistency, Trav? Where? Where? Where? Where? Where? Where? Where? Where? Where? Where? Where? Where?

Well gotta go... Toodles, my good fellow!!! ;)