After being convicted of murder in the DC sniper case of Lee Boyd Malvo, the jury elected not to issue a death sentence on him because of is age. In only three states in the United States has the death penalty been given to a juvinile in the past 10 years. Recently four of our Supreme Court justices voiced there opposition to the death penalty for defendants 16-17 as, " inconsistent with evolving standards of decency in a civilized society". With the conclusion being reached more often across the country by judges and jury's alike, that teenagers by virtue of their age and lack of life's experiences should be given a reprieve and the opportunity to be rehabilitated, would the correct course of action be to simply outlaw the act of capital punishment for all under the age of 18? Or are there circumstances that warrant the forfiture of life regardless of the defendants age?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/27/politics/27SCOT.html?hp
http://newsports.us

I would like to think that teenagers are rehab-able. On the other hand, I realize that a lot of 17, 18 year olds have already molded what type of person they are going to be throughout their adult lives. If they cannot be changed, then I don't see any point in treating them differently just because of their age. Is it worth risking other murders just to try to give a teen another chance? You have to put yourself in the shoes of the people that would be at risk. Would it be worth it to you, to have a teenage murderer freed and given a second chance, just because they are young? I know the thought makes me very uncomfortable.

This piece of shit was laughing while he described how he shot a 41 year old woman in the head with a bushmaster rifle. He was also laughing while describing how a young teenager looked as though he were swatting bees away from his head when a shot he took at the teen buzzed very close to his head. He has admitted to being the triggerman in taking a human life, shown no remorse, and bragged about his exploits. Whatever his age, if a piece of shit like this doesnt deserve the death penalty, who does?

And what about doing like all other civilized countries in the world and banning the death penalty once for all ? Or maybe you are comfortable with the USA staying in the group of democracies like Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea and China ?

The justice system is about justice. Not rehab. It punishes those who commit crimes in the hopes that the punishment was severe enough to keep them from commiting more. Rehab is a place where people can get over addictions, fears, and other physical and mental problems. And last i checked, the urge to kill people hasnt been classified as a disorder.


And i believe that muder should have but one punishment regardless of age: Execution. If a 5 year old shoots another 5 year old while playing w/ a gun, that is not muder, that is an accident. When a teenager starts poppin people with a high powered rifle, that is muder in the 1st degree and his death i believe should be very painful. The people he shot didn't get a second chance, why should he???

Very painful? Are you some kind of sadist?

Originally posted by Evil Homer
The justice system is about justice. Not rehab. It punishes those who commit crimes in the hopes that the punishment was severe enough to keep them from commiting more.


The justice system is about justice, not about inhuman punishment. Justice does not mean torture, it does not mean death.
And if the system does not take into account what happens to the prisoners after they are freed, it is a bad system. Once the prisoner has left jail, everything has to be done to make sure he won't become a criminal again. That means giving him a chance to get back to a normal life. And the prison system should do that, by training people and by giving thel the necessary assistance and support. This is not only a matter of humanity, this is a matter of efficiency.

Originally posted by astrapol2
The justice system is about justice, not about inhuman punishment. Justice does not mean torture, it does not mean death.
And if the system does not take into account what happens to the prisoners after they are freed, it is a bad system. Once the prisoner has left jail, everything has to be done to make sure he won't become a criminal again. That means giving him a chance to get back to a normal life. And the prison system should do that, by training people and by giving thel the necessary assistance and support. This is not only a matter of humanity, this is a matter of efficiency. Efficiency would be to just kill every cold blooded killer whenever they are caught. Give em a trial, if they are indeed found guilty of a calculated, pre-meditated murder, string em up by the neck until they are dead. Cost of a rope, a strong tree limb, and a chair that can be kicked out from under these pieces of shit sounds about the most "efficient" way of dealing with them.

Originally posted by HaVoK
Efficiency would be to just kill every cold blooded killer whenever they are caught. Give em a trial, if they are indeed found guilty of a calculated, pre-meditated murder, string em up by the neck until they are dead. Cost of a rope, a strong tree limb, and a chair that can be kicked out from under these pieces of shit sounds about the most "efficient" way of dealing with them.

Efficient yes, but just? What do you do after you've executed the wrong person?

I have mixed feelings about the death penalty. As a general rule I'm against it because it's not a deterrent, and it's not given out consistently. If you're a black man you're chances of receiving the death penalty are greater than if you're white. I believe the death penalty is a mistake because how can you be sure that you're executing the right person? And there is a part of me that says it's just not civilized behavior.

It seems to me that the death penalty is not about justice, it's about revenge. That desire for revenge is the strongest when you're dealing with a particularly heinous criminal like a Charles Manson or a Jeffrey Dahmer. I understand that desire for revenge, Jeffery Dahmer killed an aquaintance of mine, and I shed no tears when Jefferey Dahmer was killed in prison. Still, unless we want to descend to the level of the killers, we should find them guilty and make sure they never commit another crime again by putting them in prison and never letting them out.

I have enough compassion to feel much sorrow for the victims of this shooter and the misled teen who committed the attrocities.

I think the biggest problem with our justice system is that there is not enough effort to rehabilitate the criminals. Too many feel that if you try to impose programs meant to help cons gain better lives you aren't punishing them enough.

Not helping these broken people is what hurts us all!

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Efficient yes, but just? What do you do after you've executed the wrong person?

I have mixed feelings about the death penalty. As a general rule I'm against it because it's not a deterrent, and it's not given out consistently. If you're a black man you're chances of receiving the death penalty are greater than if you're white. I believe the death penalty is a mistake because how can you be sure that you're executing the right person? And there is a part of me that says it's just not civilized behavior.

It seems to me that the death penalty is not about justice, it's about revenge. That desire for revenge is the strongest when you're dealing with a particularly heinous criminal like a Charles Manson or a Jeffrey Dahmer. I understand that desire for revenge, Jeffery Dahmer killed an aquaintance of mine, and I shed no tears when Jefferey Dahmer was killed in prison. Still, unless we want to descend to the level of the killers, we should find them guilty and make sure they never commit another crime again by putting them in prison and never letting them out. If you execute the wrong person there is no way to denfend that. However, if we, as a society do not accept the way our judicial system judges guilt or innocence then THAT should be the problem we are dealing with. And how can you not think that the death penalty is not a detterent? Do you think people who are executed are not afraid of dying?

Of course the death penalty is about revenge. The family of victims should have some recourse to a heinous murder of a loved one shouldnt they? Or maybe you support letting this trash live so they can post web sites explaining in detail how they murdered their victims like this guy.
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-nj--prisonlawsuit0114jan14,0,2399796.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire

You're talking about how you feel executing these people is not part of civilized behavior. But the people who do these crimes are not civilized. No matter how much you may think rehabilitaion would work, IMO they dont even deserve the chance to even try to be rehabilitated.

I agree with you that the death penalty is not a fair punishment. But the point i would make to you is that our entire judicial system is not fair. If you are someone who is rich or famous, there is very little chance that you will actually spend a lot of years behind bars for ANY crime. Much less be sentenced for execution. It is unfair, but what do you do? In the case used at the beginning of this trial, the accused (now convicted) killer confessed to anyone who would listen that he did it. He laughed about his deeds as he was describing them. What is there to be rehabilitated in this piece of shit? Anyone who derives pleasure from taking another human's life is beyond rehabilitaion.

Originally posted by J_Lively
I have enough compassion to feel much sorrow for the victims of this shooter and the misled teen who committed the attrocities.

I think the biggest problem with our justice system is that there is not enough effort to rehabilitate the criminals. Too many feel that if you try to impose programs meant to help cons gain better lives you aren't punishing them enough.

Not helping these broken people is what hurts us all! I think what hurts us all is the actual crimes these people commit. You're just totally writing off the lives that this "misled teen" stole. He cold bloodedly executed innocent people for pleasure and the promise of a big payoff at the end. What program could possibly turn this admitted murderer into a fine upstanding citizen?

If you have a bad apple you throw it out, you don't put it back in the bushel.

A person kills just because, then they should be killed. These "wonderfull" killers didn't give their victims a chance, they shouldn't have one either.

Originally posted by astrapol2
And what about doing like all other civilized countries in the world and banning the death penalty once for all ?
We need the death penalty, it makes people fear doing something wrong. What we need to ban is life sentences. All they do is keep a person who has done a whole hell of a lot wrong in his life off the streets. At a cost which is enormously higher than the average person's yearly wage. Those people are not going to be reintroduced to society. What we should do instead is use the death penalty instead of life sentences.

Rehabilitation does not work all the time, correct?
Therefore you are risking innocent lives when you release a rehabilitated prisoner.
This prisoner has already proven that at least once he was unable to be innocent in our society, so why put the blameless at risk for the chance that you might fix one life?

Originally posted by WindWip
We need the death penalty, it makes people fear doing something wrong. What we need to ban is life sentences.

I don't think it matters one bit. People don't like being locked up for life and they don't like being put to death. And yet murders keep occurring regardless of whether the state in question has the death penalty. Face it, both are unpleasant and neither serves as a deterrent. Most people either kill in the heat of the moment or just don't think they'll get caught.

Sorry, I do not put much faith in rehabilitation.
Hang the bastard , just use a young rope.

The numbers I have seen for instance on (rehabilitated) rapists and child molesters that are let out and rape again are not good advertisements for rehabilitation.

rehab is a joke, most of these so called "rehab criminals" end up worse then when they first got in trouble.

Originally posted by astrapol2
The justice system is about justice, not about inhuman punishment. Justice does not mean torture, it does not mean death.
And if the system does not take into account what happens to the prisoners after they are freed, it is a bad system. Once the prisoner has left jail, everything has to be done to make sure he won't become a criminal again. That means giving him a chance to get back to a normal life. And the prison system should do that, by training people and by giving thel the necessary assistance and support. This is not only a matter of humanity, this is a matter of efficiency.

I disagree, of course....but then again, I like to disagree with you. Anyways, I think a good justice system should include purely punishment-oriented approaches, as well as rehab approaches. That is, I think for criminals who commit crimes because of sadism and/or greed, torture should be a probable option (along with possible imprisonment) for punishment. It acts as a incapacitation, deterance and negative reinforcement mechanism for the criminal himself as well as similar criminals. Furthermore, it makes victims feel like there is someone looking out for them, thus it repairs their sense of security and trust in the government. In fact, I wouldn't even be against selling tickets so that a citizen could take a bullwhip to a convicted prisoner a few times. Of course, I would work with a stringent standard for finding the need for such punishment, without the efficiency-sucking, drawn out appeals process we currently have in the U.S.

As for criminals who arguably commit a crime based on need, revenge, or someother self-preservation based (yes, I consider revenge self-preservation based) motive, I would like to see your rehabilitative approach. I would also consider this appraoch for one-time offenders, no matter the motivation.

Is Lionel the only human being posting on this thread ?

Originally posted by astrapol2
Is Lionel the only human being posting on this thread ?

Wow, disappointing response. So murderers, burglers, rapists, and such are human beings to you, but someone who supports torture (Which probably includes the majority of the global population) is not? That's some twisted reasoning you're applying there. I expected more.

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
Friedrich Nietzsche

Murderers and rapists may not be "human beings", but neither are you if you stoop to that level. We have enough rational thought to realize it is not moral to torture somebody, regardless of what they have done. The only thing we get out of it is revenge, and why keep revenge, why spend many years of your life hating somebody. You don't live that long, and you want to spend much of it in anger and hate?

"An eye for an eye makes the world go blind" Mahatma Gandhi

Now I can't see why revenge should play a role at all. Society is first on my list, the criminal comes at the very bottom. Revenge has no place. The death penalty is for giving a reason for criminals not to do something, for getting them out of the system and for not clogging up our prisons with people that the world is better without.

Blip, i could not say better.
I have no sympathy for murderers, rapist, etc… But I have principles, and amongst them :
1- No one should be allowed to kill another human being unless for self defense.
2- Torture is evil. Any regime that allowzs torture, whatever the circumstances, should be considered as ant-democratic and inhuman.

For those who believe that death penalty is a deterrent : how do you explain that the crime rate in the USA is much bigger than in European countries which have a similar life standard but no death penalty ?
And for those who say that death penalty saves money (which is a really inhuman argument : better kill them than feed them !) maybe it would be wiser to put less people in jail. 1% of the american population is in jail - a totally insane figure !

Repression is useful, but an all-repressive policy is a dead end.

Originally posted by astrapol2
And for those who say that death penalty saves money (which is a really inhuman argument : better kill them than feed them !)

sems to be OK to kill em rather than feed em for infants astro. How do you explain the outrageous abortion rates? I would rather support an unwated kid than a piece of crap who slashs some old ladies throat for .25 cents anyday. and there are LOTS of people who want the "unwanted" kids, I dont know of anybody who wants to take in some death row murderer.

Originally posted by astrapol2
I have no sympathy for murderers, rapist, etc… But I have principles, and amongst them :
1- No one should be allowed to kill another human being unless for self defense.

What about being preemptive about defending your society? You have a known murderer in court, why would you not sentence him to death?

1% of the american population is in jail - a totally insane figure !
I thought it was more than that... But I do know that half of them(uh, or more, I don't feel like looking up statistics right now) are there due to the drug war, because they smoked a joint.

What about being preemptive about defending your society? You have a known murderer in court, why would you not sentence him to death?
Have you seen Minority Report? Good movie... Love the computer screen! Uh, anyways...

Originally posted by WindWip
What about being preemptive about defending your society? You have a known murderer in court, why would you not sentence him to death?

But a life sentence accomplishes the same thing as far as keeping them out of society.

I wonder if a woman being afraid for her life in the dark and while the rapist is on top of her does she think "boy I hope this guy gets life in prison instead of death".

Or the little child being raped and murdered have last thoughts of his loving parents or "geeze I hope this person gets a life sentence so he can have a long life with good food,medical,dental,climate control and t.v.".

I say kill more of these bastards and the prison population will drop. Leave them hanging on the court house square until the body rots as a deterent to others.
When you have lost a loved one to one of these bastards you may agree. Or if you are attacked your last thoughts may be hate.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
I wonder if a woman being afraid for her life in the dark and while the rapist is on top of her does she think "boy I hope this guy gets life in prison instead of death".

Or the little child being raped and murdered have last thoughts of his loving parents or "geeze I hope this person gets a life sentence so he can have a long life with good food,medical,dental,climate control and t.v.".

I say kill more of these bastards and the prison population will drop. Leave them hanging on the court house square until the body rots as a deterent to others.
When you have lost a loved one to one of these bastards you may agree. Or if you are attacked your last thoughts may be hate.

I don't really mean to pick on you Dan, but a lot of the posts here mention the same two points. First, that we should execute people to deter future crimes, or as they would say in astropols country, pour encourager les outres, "to encourage the others". This phrase was sometimes used in the military when the generals would crack down on petty crimes among the ranks by summarily executing a few miscreants as a way to maintain discipline. The problem is, the death penalty as a deterrent doesn't work.

In this country you only get the death penalty for murder, although it wouldn't surprise me if Texas still has it for rape. Has the murder rate gone down in Texas as a result? I doubt it. Years ago I went to school for Police Science and we were shown a documentary film made in England before they abolished the death penalty. The film maker interviewed 12 guys who were condemned to die and asked them if the fact that they would face the death penalty deterred them from their crime. The answer was a unanimous NO. Either the crime was commited under circumstances that didn't permit a lot of deliberation about the consequences, or more often, the criminal didn't believe he would be caught. The fact that we have so many people in this country on death row should eliminate any debate as to the deterrance factor.

The second common point in most of the posts that favor the death penalty is the revenge issue. Some examples:

When a teenager starts poppin people with a high powered rifle, that is muder in the 1st degree and his death i believe should be very painful.


Efficiency would be to just kill every cold blooded killer whenever they are caught. Give em a trial, if they are indeed found guilty of a calculated, pre-meditated murder, string em up by the neck until they are dead. Cost of a rope, a strong tree limb, and a chair that can be kicked out from under these pieces of shit sounds about the most "efficient" way of dealing with them.

That is, I think for criminals who commit crimes because of sadism and/or greed, torture should be a probable option (along with possible imprisonment) for punishment. It acts as a incapacitation, deterance and negative reinforcement mechanism for the criminal himself as well as similar criminals. Furthermore, it makes victims feel like there is someone looking out for them, thus it repairs their sense of security and trust in the government. In fact, I wouldn't even be against selling tickets so that a citizen could take a bullwhip to a convicted prisoner a few times.


All of these quotes show a desire for revenge, a desire to give to the criminal a taste of his own crime. A very human feeling to be sure, but it is just that, a feeling, or to put it differently, an emotional response. I believe emotion has no place in our minds when it comes to the dispensation of justice. Justice applied while in the grip of emotion is not justice at all. Even the courts have recognized that emotions can taint the proper dispensation of justice. They routinely ban grisly photographs of crime scenes from being shown to juries because they know that the emotions they bring out in people will cloud the juries ability to make a rational decision. While I understand the desire for revenge I think it has no place in our justice system.

I find it somewhat curious that some of the people who are for the death penalty are christians, while others who are opposed to it are avowed atheists. You might expect it to be the other way around. Despite the Old Testament's frequent descriptions of stoning for seemingly minor crimes and the recommendation of "an eye for an eye" type of justice I believe the Bible generally speaks against killing, and revenge.

Romans 12:19
Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

I'm not trying to throw the Bible in anyone's face and indeed there are other passages that can be used to justify the death penalty. I do believe killing is wrong, and who can say that the man who kills in the heat of anger, or in the commission of a desperate crime, is more wrong than the group of people who decides he must die after a cold and calculated deliberation. Killing is wrong and I want no part of it.

I sort of curious as to whether those who say they want murderers to suffer really mean it or if they just are being outrageous to get attention?

Originally posted by LionelHutz
But a life sentence accomplishes the same thing as far as keeping them out of society.

Not quite. I know a lot of criminal-sympathists like to forget about this, but prison guards, prison officials, attorneys, doctors, nurses, and more have to deal with those people on a daily basis.

In other words, life imprisonment doesn't involve locking up prisoners and throwing away the key. Their interaction with members of society still continues on a limited basis.

Just to prove my point: Allow me to include this story about prison guards being held hostage for two weeks. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=6&u=/ap/20040201/ap_on_re_us/prison_hostage

I'd like to see you tell those prison guards' families that prisoners are isolated from society.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
I sort of curious as to whether those who say they want murderers to suffer really mean it or if they just are being outrageous to get attention?

I'm being slightly outrageous, but I definitely think pure criminals should suffer more than they do. If someone murdered one of my loved ones, I'd rather take care of the killer myself than let the justice system deliver "justice."

Let's say someone rapes and murders your wife. Would you really feel satisfied if the guy that did it got life imprisonment (that's of course if you can prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt....a very stringent standard that practically requires you to catch the criminal red-handed), where he still gets to read books, watch TV, and enjoy whatever little pleasures there may be left in life. In the meantime, your kids are motherless, you're dealt a lifetime's worth of grief, and your wife is still dead.

Does that sound just to you? I know if I were in that situation, I would not be happy with our "justice" system, not one bit.

Originally posted by Blibblob
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
Friedrich Nietzsche

Murderers and rapists may not be "human beings", but neither are you if you stoop to that level. We have enough rational thought to realize it is not moral to torture somebody, regardless of what they have done. The only thing we get out of it is revenge, and why keep revenge, why spend many years of your life hating somebody. You don't live that long, and you want to spend much of it in anger and hate?

"An eye for an eye makes the world go blind" Mahatma Gandhi

I really don't see what torture has to do with morality if it is applied in a reasonable fashion. Imprisonment is a form of torture in itself. You don't have any problem with imprisonment right? In that case, I don't see where you draw your lines. Honestly, I don't believe you've given it much independant thought beyond using the traditionally fundamentalist thought process of "It's not moral."

Originally posted by astrapol2
Blip, i could not say better.
I have no sympathy for murderers, rapist, etc? But I have principles, and amongst them :
1- No one should be allowed to kill another human being unless for self defense.
2- Torture is evil. Any regime that allowzs torture, whatever the circumstances, should be considered as ant-democratic and inhuman.

For those who believe that death penalty is a deterrent : how do you explain that the crime rate in the USA is much bigger than in European countries which have a similar life standard but no death penalty ?
And for those who say that death penalty saves money (which is a really inhuman argument : better kill them than feed them !) maybe it would be wiser to put less people in jail. 1% of the american population is in jail - a totally insane figure !

Repression is useful, but an all-repressive policy is a dead end.

A) The death penalty in the U.S. is actually more expensive than life imprisonment (I'm actually against our death penalty as it exists today, but not for morality-based reasons).

B) I don't see what torture has to do with democracy.

C) Torture is inhuman? Yes, that's the idea. Someone who commits inhuman crimes should incur inhuman treatment. That's why our current justice system doesn't grant prisoners the same fundamental rights as non-prisoners.

D) You mention torture is awful, but then you criticize the fact that 1% of our population is imprisoned, a problem that torture could help solve (By torturing instead of imprisoning). How do the French deal with criminals? Do you just say "Don't do it again!" and let the criminal go?
And before you judge me some more, I'd like to remind you......don't forget I'm the one who frequently defends criminals on this board (See the discussion on assaulting pregnant women and anything having to do with drug use/sex-related crimes). That is, don't make the mistake of assuming that I automatically view all criminals as "evil".

Originally posted by Leper
I really don't see what torture has to do with morality if it is applied in a reasonable fashion.

I really don't see how anyone can think of torture as being "reasonable", unless they are a sadist.

Imprisonment is a form of torture in itself. You don't have any problem with imprisonment right? In that case, I don't see where you draw your lines.

Imprisonment, while being a form of "torture" is the only method of separating the offender from society short of execution, that is available to us at the moment. It is infinitely preferable to simply killing off those who we find to be a threat to society. I draw my line at the intentional infliction of physical cruelty as punishment, and happily, so does the Constitution.

Honestly, I don't believe you've given it much independant thought beyond using the traditionally fundamentalist thought process of "It's not moral."

Anyone who does not think physical torture is immoral definitely has not given the subject much thought at all. What would be the purpose behind the torture of prisoners? Do you enjoy the thought of torture? What kind of torture would you reccomend? The rack? Thumbscrews? Perhaps inserting bamboo shoots under the fingernails? Really Leper, such devices went out with the Inquisition and rightfully so. It amazes me that anyone would even suggest that such methods should be brought back.

Originally posted by Blibblob
1% of the american population is in jail - a totally insane figure !
I thought it was more than that... But I do know that half of them(uh, or more, I don't feel like looking up statistics right now) are there due to the drug war, because they smoked a joint.


Just to correct this misrepresentation, getting caught smoking a joint doesn't earn sentences involving jailtime.

in the paranoid world of pot smokers it does leper.

Originally posted by astrapol2
[1- No one should be allowed to kill another human being unless for self defense.


I find this interesting, your all for killing in self defence, what do you think killing someone like the Ice Man is? If you don't know who he is lets just say he went around and killed for fun, anyone from teenage to adult. He put people in a cave tied them up, cut them enough to make them bleed, then left them. He recorded what happened. Rats came out and ate the people alive. They(rats) started with the soft tissue first, eyes, nose, brain, mouth. Now tell me how nice your killers are now? Tell me, or better yet give me ONE good reason why we should keep pieces of sh** like this alive? You preach how bad an executioner is, but you feel for the scum???? Oh I forgot the Ice Man has also killed while in prison, he also scares the sh** out of the guards. These guards have enough trouble dealing with the punk gangbangers, they shouldn't have to worry about someone that kills just for fun.

Originally posted by mad dog
I find this interesting, your all for killing in self defence, what do you think killing someone like the Ice Man is? If you don't know who he is lets just say he went around and killed for fun, anyone from teenage to adult. He put people in a cave tied them up, cut them enough to make them bleed, then left them. He recorded what happened. Rats came out and ate the people alive. They(rats) started with the soft tissue first, eyes, nose, brain, mouth. Now tell me how nice your killers are now? Tell me, or better yet give me ONE good reason why we should keep pieces of sh** like this alive? You preach how bad an executioner is, but you feel for the scum???? Oh I forgot the Ice Man has also killed while in prison, he also scares the sh** out of the guards. These guards have enough trouble dealing with the punk gangbangers, they shouldn't have to worry about someone that kills just for fun.

Who is this Ice Man you write about? I did a Google search and found no references about a killer by that nickname.

If you look hard enough I'm sure you could find an even more heinous murderer. The point isn't how horrific a crime has to be before they deserve to be executed, nor is it about having feelings for "scum". I believe that every person is a human being, even your "Ice Man", even Hitler. When we as a society kill people for whatever reason, we then become the killers. I don't wish to kill ANYONE for ANY reason. If pressed into a bad situation I probably would kill to preserve my own life or the life of someone else, but that is the only reason that I believe it is justifiable to take someones life. Revenge is one of the worst reasons to do it. We can protect society from killers by imprisoning them for the rest of their lives and that is preferable to killing them.

Why do you feel qualified to judge who lives and who dies? So you decide that someone is scum or a piece of s**t and then blithely determine that they deserve to die? History is replete with examples of societies who decided to rid themselves of "scum" and "undesirables" and the history is a dark and sordid one.

Killing someone is an easy topic to discuss when you have never participated in the activity mad dog, but when faced with the reality of it, it becomes a much less abstract subject. I sincerely hope you never have to deal with the feelings that come with the knowledge that you have participated in the taking of someone's life. It is a very unpleasant experience.

A little story about horrible crimes and the feelings of the victim's families (I already posted it a few month ago on another thread).

I have met a woman a few month ago who told me her story. 15 years ago, her brother was brutally killed - stabbed more than 20 times with a big knife. She found his dead body, covered with blood, the next morning. Imagine her feelings !
The murderer was soon arrested - it was the man's wife. She was sentenced to 11 years.
During all these years, the woman couldn't help thinking about this horrible murder. She said that, if one day she had a chance to meet the murderer of her brother, she would kill her.
And then, a couple of years ago, it happened. By chance, in the street, she met her late brother's wife, who had been released a few month before.

That woman told me that at the very moment when she saw her, all her hatred evaporated and she just felt pity for this woman who had been affected by 11 years in jail. Believe it or not, this is what she told me.

The close relative of the victim of a terrible murder can still feel compassion for the murderer and see the human being rather than the "monster". Seeking revenge by death or torture is not a way of making justice - it is just a way of listening to the worst part of us. And, if endorsed by justice, it just makes the whole society more violent, more inhuman - if the justice of my country accepts death or torture, why should I consider that killing or torturing are not an acceptable behaviour ?

And about jail being a kind of torture : that is precisely why jail should be human. People in jail are deprived of liberty, nothing more. They should be treated well, be visited, and have a decent life.
Just being in jail is already a harsh punishment.

Originally posted by Leper
A) The death penalty in the U.S. is actually more expensive than life imprisonment
The death penalty costs 2.3 million per case in Massachusetts on average (including the case/appeals/extra costs ect...) With the majority of the cost in the courts.
It costs an average of 75,000$ a year for a cell in a life sentence. In addition there are the costs of the court case, which again is a very large amount, averaging 1.6 million

For the death penalty to be cheaper than life sentences, the prisoner would have to live for less than 10 years after being introduced to prison. That doesn't happen, they live much longer than that I can assure you.

Death Penalty cost (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7)
C) Torture is inhuman? Yes, that's the idea. Someone who commits inhuman crimes should incur inhuman treatment. That's why our current justice system doesn't grant prisoners the same fundamental rights as non-prisoners.
The purpose of prison is not for punishment exept to strip them of their liberties, it is to isolate them from society. Now I may not agree with this. I believe that we should have a system similar to the French, but that is not how we have defined justice in our country.
How do the French deal with criminals? Do you just say "Don't do it again!" and let the criminal go?
The French have cells devoid of light and toletries for the purpose of wrecking you. You get sent to jail for a year and you could easily die. Obviously you have been manipulated by Bush's propeganda of France.

Originally posted by Leper
Just to correct this misrepresentation, getting caught smoking a joint doesn't earn sentences involving jailtime.
My cousin was caught with a pipe. He didn't even have weed on him and he was sentenced to a month in jail and he was stripped of his liscence until he turns 25, he's 22 now.

This is not a usual case, it was a hardass judge making an example of him, but you can be put in jail for pot.

Originally posted by WindWip
The French have cells devoid of light and toletries for the purpose of wrecking you. You get sent to jail for a year and you could easily die. Obviously you have been manipulated by Bush's propeganda of France. Are you saying that the majority of prison cells in France are like this? Or are you saying that there may be A cell in France that is like this?

Originally posted by WindWip
My cousin was caught with a pipe. He didn't even have weed on him and he was sentenced to a month in jail and he was stripped of his liscence until he turns 25, he's 22 now.

This is not a usual case, it was a hardass judge making an example of him, but you can be put in jail for pot.

Hmmm, first I have to be suspicious of your reply because I have news for you: people caught committing crime often lie to their family members about the nature/circumstances of the crime.

Second, owning a pipe alone is not illegal (at least in TX, and TX is not known for being particularly soft on crime). You can find stores that sell pipes.

Three, it's possible that he committed another crime but plea bargained it out in exchange for a harsher sentence for possession (or whatever he was really convicted of).

Four, with that license suspension, it sounds more likely that he got convicted of driving under the influence, a crime that's treated more harshly than mere possession.

Five, I worked in a city where people were sentenced to probation for possession EVERY time. Granted, not every courtroom is alike, and it is concievable that a small town judge/prosecutor might do something like your example (except the license suspension....that sort of punishment is reserved for driving-related offenses as far as TX is concerned). However, my point remains: Pot smokers aren't the people filling our jails. Drug dealers maybe, but not people caught smoking a joint.

Originally posted by Leper
Let's say someone rapes and murders your wife. Would you really feel satisfied if the guy that did it got life imprisonment (that's of course if you can prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt....a very stringent standard that practically requires you to catch the criminal red-handed)

There's always other evidence - catching them red-handed isn't necessary. But hell no I wouldn't be satisfied with life-imprisonment. I'd want to kill him myself. But that's why they don't let the victim decide the sentence. And I'm not necessarily coming out against the death penalty, I'm just playing devil's advocate. I'm pretty wishy-washy on the subject.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
who is this Ice Man you write about? I did a Google search and found no references about a killer by that nickname.

He is very famous in the states, he has even had a special on T.V. The guy doing the interview almost sh** his pants when he made a comment about something and pi**ed the I.M. off. He thought he was going to kill him.

If you look hard enough I'm sure you could find an even more heinous murderer. The point isn't how horrific a crime has to be before they deserve to be executed, nor is it about having feelings for "scum".

you are corect a killer, is a killer, is a killer.

I believe that every person is a human being, even your "Ice Man", even Hitler.

I never said they weren't human.

When we as a society kill people for whatever reason, we then become the killers. I don't wish to kill ANYONE for ANY reason.

I really get sick of that first sentence, when we as a society take out our trash we make the world a better place. I'm not asking you personally to kill anyone let those that feel "NOTHING" for these killer "humans", kill them.

If pressed into a bad situation I probably would kill to preserve my own life or the life of someone else, but that is the only reason that I believe it is justifiable to take someones life.

So you and Astra contradict your own thoughts, you both say you'll kill to stop a killer from killing, but then you'll turn around and keep a killer in a jail cell where they do/have/will kill. Tell that to the folks down in Texas where they lost loved ones to the escaped killers that killed their husbands.

Revenge is one of the worst reasons to do it.

Who said anything about revenge??? I said take out the trash, the problem here is your getting emotional, why? Once again when you have a rotten apple in the bushell do you leave it there so it can rot the others, or do you through it out? I am not taking revenge on something when it is spoiling the rest. I am making society a better place with one less scum bag.

We can protect society from killers by imprisoning them for the rest of their lives and that is preferable to killing them.

This is the biggest line of bull sense Hillary came to NY. The system as proven it doesn't work, time and time again, these "killers" are always getting out and going right back to what they do best....kill.

Why do you feel qualified to judge who lives and who dies?

Well lets see, I have two children, a wife, and countless other relatives, friends, etc... that should be able to grow without fear of some scum bag raping , torturing, and killing them. If a persons purpose in life is to go around and kill the innocent then what purpose do they really have?

So you decide that someone is scum or a piece of s**t and then blithely determine that they deserve to die?

So it's OK for a killer to kill, but not ok for the innocent to fend for society?

History is replete with examples of societies who decided to rid themselves of "scum" and "undesirables" and the history is a dark and sordid one.

Show me ONE case where society did a bad thing by getting rid of a killer??????????????

Killing someone is an easy topic to discuss when you have never participated in the activity mad dog, but when faced with the reality of it, it becomes a much less abstract subject. I sincerely hope you never have to deal with the feelings that come with the knowledge that you have participated in the taking of someone's life. It is a very unpleasant experience.

The reason I have such an opinion of this, is because I have dealt with this type of situation. Please don't belittle me when you no nothing about me, or any of my life experiences.

Originally posted by mad dog

you are corect a killer, is a killer, is a killer. [/QUOTE

So if you execute someone, doesn't that make you a killer too?


[QUOTE]
I never said they weren't human.

I really get sick of that first sentence, when we as a society take out our trash we make the world a better place. I'm not asking you personally to kill anyone let those that feel "NOTHING" for these killer "humans", kill them.

You say you don't think of them as inhuman, then you refer to them as "trash" and "bad apples". Either they are human beings who deserve to be treated as such or they are not. Our constitution states that one of the "inalienable" rights that all people have is the right to life. I don't believe that that means inalienable "most of the time". I realize you're not asking me to kill "personally", but you are asking me whether I approve of the state executing people, and I do not. I do not want to kill, nor do I want the state to kill to protect me from the chance that someone might escape from prison. I think those who feel "nothing" for these fellow human beings are wrong.



So you and Astra contradict your own thoughts, you both say you'll kill to stop a killer from killing, but then you'll turn around and keep a killer in a jail cell where they do/have/will kill. Tell that to the folks down in Texas where they lost loved ones to the escaped killers that killed their husbands.

I don't believe it's contradictory to say that I would kill to save my own life or the life of someone else. I would be acting to prevent a wrongful killing that has not yet occured. Executing someone for a past crime is altogether different. We have the capability to build prisons that people do not escape from. Alcatraz is a good example, I believe one guy succeeded in escaping from there in the 1930's. Have you ever heard of anyone escaping from the Federal Prison in Marion Ill? Also when you condemn someone to die, you put them in a position of having nothing to lose by escaping and killing again. To say you should execute someone because they "might" escape and do it again is just not a valid reason for capital punishment IMO.


Who said anything about revenge??? I said take out the trash, the problem here is your getting emotional, why? Once again when you have a rotten apple in the bushell do you leave it there so it can rot the others, or do you through it out? I am not taking revenge on something when it is spoiling the rest. I am making society a better place with one less scum bag.

Actually, I believe you are the one looking at this subject from an emotional perspective based on this statement by you. "I'm not asking you personally to kill anyone let those that feel "NOTHING" for these killer "humans", kill them. You talk about "feeling" nothing for these humans, not "thinking". Feelings although very human, should have nothing to do with deciding matters of justice.


This is the biggest line of bull sense Hillary came to NY. The system as proven it doesn't work, time and time again, these "killers" are always getting out and going right back to what they do best....kill.

I don't think it happens as often as you would like to believe. To say that killers are "always" getting out to do it again is just wrong. Again, we have the capability to build prisons that people will not escape from. That should be our solution.



So it's OK for a killer to kill, but not ok for the innocent to fend for society?

I don't believe it's neccessary to execute people to protect society. Let me ask you again, if it's wrong for a murderer to kill, and a killer is a killer is a killer, isn't it wrong for society to kill too?



Show me ONE case where society did a bad thing by getting rid of a killer??????????????

Ever hear of the Sam Shepard case? It's the case that the old TV show "The Fugitive" was based on. Turns out that after he was convicted of murdering his wife that likely he wasn't guilty after all. How do you go back and un-execute someone who was wrongly convicted? Almost every week you read in the news about criminals who were wrongly convicted, being exonerated for their crimes based on new DNA tests. That's one of the big problems with capital punishment, it's final, no appeal after it's carried out. It's also not applied evenly to all segments of our society. In Texas they actually argued that it was OK to execute a mentally retarded man. How many convicted murderers are on death row who are mentally ill?


The reason I have such an opinion of this, is because I have dealt with this type of situation. Please don't belittle me when you no nothing about me, or any of my life experiences.

You are right I know nothing about you or your life experiences. I certainly did not intend to belittle you, and frankly I'm at a loss to understand what I might have said to make you feel belittled. I don't know what you mean when you say you have dealt with this type of situation. It seemed to me that because of the ease with which you appear willing to decide that some people have no right to live, you have had no personal experience with killing people. If I am wrong, I apologize and meant no offense.

[1] Does a policeman become a kidnapper when they put someone in handcuffs?

Originally posted by Vilepagan
You say you don't think of them as inhuman, then you refer to them as "trash" and "bad apples". Either they are human beings who deserve to be treated as such or they are not. Our constitution states that one of the "inalienable" rights that all people have is the right to life. I don't believe that that means inalienable "most of the time". I realize you're not asking me to kill "personally", but you are asking me whether I approve of the state executing people, and I do not. I do not want to kill, nor do I want the state to kill to protect me from the chance that someone might escape from prison. I think those who feel "nothing" for these fellow human beings are wrong.

{1}Well there must be humans that you know that you would label. I think you are reading to far into my post. Once these humans kill an innocent they become a bad seed. It does not take the fact away that they are still human, just now that they have killed they are a bad human.

{2} So they deserve to be treated with respect but their victims don't deserve anyrights.

{3} Our Constitution also says don't go around, torture, rape, and kill others. Once you kill an innocent then you loose the rights under our Constitution.

{4} I feel that those that want to protect something that is poison to society are wrong.


I don't believe it's contradictory to say that I would kill to save my own life or the life of someone else. I would be acting to prevent a wrongful killing that has not yet occured. Executing someone for a past crime is altogether different. We have the capability to build prisons that people do not escape from. Alcatraz is a good example, I believe one guy succeeded in escaping from there in the 1930's. Have you ever heard of anyone escaping from the Federal Prison in Marion Ill? Also when you condemn someone to die, you put them in a position of having nothing to lose by escaping and killing again. To say you should execute someone because they "might" escape and do it again is just not a valid reason for capital punishment IMO.

{1} it is contradictory to say kill a killer, but not a "killer". history has proven that these folks do and will kill again.

{2}Lets say we build these prisons and keep the trash alive, now we have hurt society in another way. The money that went to that trash bag could have went to an elderly vet. The average disabled, edlerly, etc.. get 15000 a year. the average criminal gets 40000+ a year. That money could have went to 2.66666 people that need the help, not scum. I used the average criminal cost.... to keep a killer in jail, it would be more like 70000+ a year, that would help 4.66666 people. Now lets say we have "killer boy" locked up no chance of getting out. He figures what the he!! I can't be executed, and I really hate guard Bob, so now guard Bob is dead, and his family gets SSI because they no longer have a husband, father to support them. The family looses a loved one, and the rest of the public's taxes just went up again. We don't only have to support the trash, now we need to help Bob's family out. Once again I ask what is the sense in keeping the rotten apple?



Actually, I believe you are the one looking at this subject from an emotional perspective based on this statement by you. "I'm not asking you personally to kill anyone let those that feel "NOTHING" for these killer "humans", kill them. You talk about "feeling" nothing for these humans, not "thinking". Feelings although very human, should have nothing to do with deciding matters of justice.

Of course I have feelings towards this, I have feelings for the innocent that are in constant hurt because of the scum{look at above statement}. Justice involves feelings, otherwise we wouldn't need justice. The thing you are getting screwed up is you have feelings for the wrong side. We have the innocent, then we have the killer, who should we be thinking about?



I don't think it happens as often as you would like to believe. To say that killers are "always" getting out to do it again is just wrong. Again, we have the capability to build prisons that people will not escape from. That should be our solution.

This is spoken like it was written by someone young, even if 1 or 2 get out and kill again, isn't that enough? Building prisons cost big bucks, which inturn takes money away from honest, innocent folks, or maybe we could just keep adding taxes on to folks income to save the scum.


I don't believe it's neccessary to execute people to protect society. Let me ask you again, if it's wrong for a murderer to kill, and a killer is a killer is a killer, isn't it wrong for society to kill too?

This is where you logic is screwed up, when we kill a killer we are not killing an innocent. This person allready proved they are not worthy of being around or in the public.




Ever hear of the Sam Shepard case? It's the case that the old TV show "The Fugitive" was based on. Turns out that after he was convicted of murdering his wife that likely he wasn't guilty after all. How do you go back and un-execute someone who was wrongly convicted? Almost every week you read in the news about criminals who were wrongly convicted, being exonerated for their crimes based on new DNA tests. That's one of the big problems with capital punishment, it's final, no appeal after it's carried out. It's also not applied evenly to all segments of our society. In Texas they actually argued that it was OK to execute a mentally retarded man. How many convicted murderers are on death row who are mentally ill?

It doesn't happen every week. There may be cases were killers get off on some screw up, but they are not all innocent sorry do some research, very few are innocent of the crime they just had something messed up on/during the arrest.. With that said I am only talking about the proven without a doubt cases.



You are right I know nothing about you or your life experiences. I certainly did not intend to belittle you, and frankly I'm at a loss to understand what I might have said to make you feel belittled. I don't know what you mean when you say you have dealt with this type of situation. It seemed to me that because of the ease with which you appear willing to decide that some people have no right to live, you have had no personal experience with killing people. If I am wrong, I apologize and meant no offense.

This is just one of my personal stories, I just want to show you a taste of the real world. A close friend of mine lost his adopted parents to their real son. The son was locked up without parole, there is NO doubt about him being the killer. Now with the help of the system, there is a VERY good chance he will walk{it's been less then 10 years} He has not changed his ways he still carrys a hate for some folks on the outside and has said time and time again he will kill them. He is not lying he has proven he can kill and he can kill just because. So with your wonderfull system{and mine, not by my choice} another scum bag walks the streets. This does happen all the time, killers getting set free on screw ups and by playing the system.

Sorry to have sounded like I was snapping at you. I think you are an inteligent person, but I also think you are getting emotional for someone{something} that would just as easly kill you, your wife, and kids. IF someone killed a member of my family I would not want to be the executioner, for a simple reason. I would get emotional and torture the bastured for hours if not days before letting him/her die. I do however feel if a person feels the need to kill an innocent, then they should be willing to be killed for there deed.

Lets look at this another way, we have serial killer "X". X goes out and kills 10 women 8 were prostitutes with not much going for them{except that there nice girls just trying to make a quik buck} 2 were wife/mothers(2children each).

Now the 8 prositutes had parents, so that effects 24 people. Now 4 of the prostitues had grandparents on both sides of the family, now we are up too 16 more people effected. Just with the prositutes 40 family members are effected by one man, X. Not to mention friends, other relitives, etc...

Now we move to the 2 mothers/wifes they each have parents a husband and 2 kids each. That's another 10 people effected, once again lets not forget the relitives and friends. Now lets talk about the 4 kids, they will recieve money from the government for the loose of a parent. Now X has an effect on every tax payer and we still haven't even put his arse in the sling yet. He has screwed 50+ people's lives up and has still yet to be put behind bars. Now he gets a jail sentence it cost us 50000 to keep him locked up per year, that money could have helped 3.33333 honest, innocent, people with a disability, or elderly. Now lets say X gets pi**ed and kills while in jail. He kills Y, Y was only in for some small crime, getting caught with pot{2-3 year sentence}. Y isn't a bad guy, he even helps out at the local boys club. Y had a good family with lots of relatives and friend, not to mention alot of the kids at the boys club thought he was kool. Oh and Y never pushed his pot onto anyone, he just did his own thing. Now damn X is back in the spot light again, more tax dollars wasted on yet more court crap. Now lets stop here before X kills again or gets loose. Look at how many good folks{some had there problems but overall they weren't horrible people} X as F**ked up. Trash needs to go... it does nothing for us {society} except put off a nasty odor and stink up the world.

I have a question for all of you out there who like to defend the "rights" of killers. There is a story in the news right now. They have video tape of a man abducting an 11 year old child. His roomate saw the video and called the police to tell them that her roomate was in fact the man in the video. He is refusing to cooperate with authorities. If the little girl is found sometime in the future, and she has been (i pray it doesnt turn out this way) raped and murdered by the man in custody. DNA evidence prove it and all of that. You think this is someone who can be rehabilitated? You think that a life (which he stole from an innocent) behind bars is sufficient punishment for him? You think he deserves to be allowed to live?


http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/02/05/missing.girl/index.html

I made another thread about this, but I think the son of a bith should be tortured until he talks and says what he did with her and where she is.

Havok, Travh, and anyone else that is interested;

I just heard on the radio.....the worse has happened. They found the girls body behind a church, he killed her.

Well lets keep him alive after all he is human and needs to be treated with respect......BULL SH**, BULL SH**, BULL SH**.

Vilepagan;

I think you need to take a hard look at this case, take a look at those parents, take a look at who that girl was and could have been. Then tell us how much this stinking piece of trash deserves to live.

VERY SAD DAY!!!!!

Originally posted by mad dog
Havok, Travh, and anyone else that is interested;

I just heard on the radio.....the worse has happened. They found the girls body behind a church, he killed her.

Well lets keep him alive after all he is human and needs to be treated with respect......BULL SH**, BULL SH**, BULL SH**.

Vilepagan;

I think you need to take a hard look at this case, take a look at those parents, take a look at who that girl was and could have been. Then tell us how much this stinking piece of trash deserves to live.

VERY SAD DAY!!!!!

You're right mad dog, it is a very sad day indeed.

If he's guilty, I think that this guy deserves to be punished for his crime mad dog, and I think that putting him in prison with a bunch of other inmates who will treat him very badly would be an appropriate punishment for what he is accused of doing. I think that would be better than a quick merciful death.

Honestly mad dog I have to wonder at someone who is willing to pass judgement in a capital case based on what they heard on the radio. Judging from your past posts I had thought you to be a little more discerning an individual than that. I might expect it from Trav but not from you. I will wait until he is found guilty by a jury who has seen the evidence before I decide he's guilty.

My feelings about capital punishment stem mostly from my feeling that no one including myself is qualified to judge that someone else deserves to die. I am not dismissing the pain and sorrow that this child's family must feel now, it must be indescribable. No law we can pass and no punishment we could impose will prevent such monsters from perpetrating crimes such as these. This is a very difficult situation and everyone's emotions are running high, but my thoughts about capital punishment remain unchanged. It would be easy to give in to the desire for revenge but that's mob justice, and not something I want to see in this country.