As you have heard, the body of the little girl, first name Carlie, was found in FL this week. The animal that did it ( I refuse to equate him with a human being or even an upper level mammal) had 13 prior convictions, more than 4 of them felony convictions involving violence. The judge never even saw him at his parole violation hearing on Dec 30 and allowed him to stay a free man.

I want to see this man dead, obviously.

I want to change up the debate on the death penalty a bit. It usually degenerates into the possiblity of executing the innocent, which is a legitimate concern, and I will be happy to debate that on another thread.

My question for debate is:

When we have no doubt as to guilt, as with Jeffery Dahmer or this guy that killed the little girl or Richard Allen Davis that killed and raped Polly Klaas, and we have a history of violent behavior, why not give them the death penalty? Why is the death penalty wrong in your opinion in these cases?

Please don't debate on whether they are innocent, that is for another thread, this is where guilt is assured and really not even contested.

I am 100% with you on this CR.

It boggles my mind that there are those who oppose the death penalty for people like this.

You can't rehabilitate people like this. They are a waste of space and steal the air we breathe.

Well, it's never wrong in a case like this. What is dreadfully wrong
is the fact that this guy was given countless free passes, as a criminal.
Nobody took this despicable creature seriously. Now, maybe they'll take
him seriously. An eleven year old girl had to lose her life before this piece
of filth is taken seriously. It is times like this where I am painfully reminded
of just how messed up our justice system is.

If things go according to schedule, he'll be put to death in about, ohhh,
several years, if we're lucky. I would love to see some vigilante justice
in this case.

Kill him if he did it.
They just got a guy here in Arizona, down in Chandler, who had organized and took part in sexual activity with Children down in Mexico. They are going to deport him and send him back to Mexico.
These people aren't human. Remove them from the gene pool.

As for the guy in Florida. Why in only what, 15 years he'll run out of legal retrys and get as he deserves.

In many ways on social issues, I would be called a liberal. I am for universal health care. I think social programs are neccesary.

On crime issues, fixing root causes or at least mitigating them somewhat, such as poverty and education, I am all for it. But my largesse ends the minute someone takes anothers life for ANY reason except imminent self defense. This means any reason, whether it be drunk driving or a drug deal gone bad. There is simply no excuse, and you should lose your personal right to life IMO.

There is no need for mercy for these people.

I have said it in other posts, but there is a large number of career criminals where rehabilitation is not going to happen, for whatever reason, and they are very easy to spot. They have this very long record called "a criminal history". Why we, as a nation, can't get the intestinal fortitude to say "Okay, you have had three violent felonies in your life, and now we are going to remove you from the earth and the whole world will be a better place in your absence" is beyond me. Maybe it is because I have beome so cynical of the human criminal mind that I see no hope, but I don't think hope is a warranted, deserved or even worthy cause in so many of these animals.

Why?-because if we do to the killers in any way what they did to their victims, we are no better than they were. The goal of society should not be retribution, but rather, just punishment and the ability to not sink to the lowest common denominator that those who have contempt for society would want it to. Give these guys life in prison. I know, I know, they are coddled in prison and they have fun. Send them to that underground facility that locks them up for twenty-three hours a day. Send them to that sheriff in Arizona who has them working out under the blazing Arizona sun in the desert. Give them hard labor for the next forty years. Why take away their punishment after a fifteen minute injection? Why not make them sweat and labor? To me, that would be more *satisfying* to my desire for punishment.

I don't wish to take the thread off topic, but you state the question in such a moral absolutist way-Even if guilt is "not contested" it can still be wrong. Here's a case where guilt "not contetested" turned out to be....contested.


http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/...vict%20released


The guy was convicted TWICE!! Obvious guilt does not exist with the death penalty, there is a built in flaw factor in even the most convincing cases.

Well, my main beef with the DP is the "accidental innocent" argument, so I won't repeat it here.

However, I don't think death is enough of a punishment in cases such as this. Any suffering that this prisoner will experience will stem mostly from knowing he is going to die for what he did and will never breathe free air in the meantime than from actually being killed. This is only right, since we, as civilised people, would be no worse than the murderers if we made the excution itself drawn out or painful.

Since I do not believe in an afterlife, I do not believe that the convicted murderers' suffering continues after their execution. So, I prefer the idea of keeping them alive, possibly in solitary confinement with few or no visitation rights, until they die of natural causes. Indeed, if their death sentence were to be postponed until seconds before their natural death, so that they always know that even their death will not be subject to their free will but at the hands of others, so much the better.

Which is also, happily, consistent with the "accidental innocent" argument, since if we do find that a convicted murderer is innocent using subsequent scientific advances or other new evidence, we can let them out and try to compensate them; somehintg no-one has ever managed to do to an executed innocent.

I'm glad I found this forum. Now THIS is how to debate.

As someone who's against the death penalty, I've got nothing. In cases where guilt is admitted to, video taped, etc., by a person of sane mind, the only reason I have for not killing them is a rather vanilla, "I think killing is wrong. Wrong when they do it, and would be wrong if we did it."

Now take into account that I'm an admitted idealist, so I might not have the best argument aside from lofty notions.

Besides, I don't see what you guys are worried about, this cat'll probably be killed before he gets his first retrial anyway. You know what folks in prison do to people who mess with kids.

Let's with the "no doubt". What constitutes it? Maybe I'm a bit a of a skeptic, but I only say I know something without a doubt if I was there to see it.

Otherwise, we get into the varying degrees of "no doubt", a slippery slope, basically.

Other than that, the death penalty, even in a case like this, is just plain stupid. What does it accomplish? Use them for hard labor, make them clean the porto-potties at concerts, or something.

If it's a matter of retribution, then it should be carried out by the victim's family, not the government. Other than that, there is zero point. Let him go to prison and become somebody's wife, something that happens rather fast to child killers.

One of the reasons that I support the death penalty is precisely because a viable and fair alternative, a life of grueling penance and hard labor will never come to pass as a form of criminal justice. I would love to see a Devil's Island type of facility where animals like this murderer would be sent. But if that were introduced, many of these same anti-death penalty protestors and groups would simply re-write their placards and petitions and fight against 'cruel and inhumane' treatment of prisoners. We already have an environment where groups complain if inmates aren't getting their cable TV.

In absence of this alternative, death is the only fair and judicious remedy.

This guy was caught on video tape taking her away- Jeffery Dahmer was found with heads in his freezer. Etc ETc- this is why I started the debate on issues where guilt is a foregone conclusion- and the criminal itself is just jockeying for less punishment- as will be the case here. Many violent criminals like this guy or Richard Allen Davis are not afraid of jail or becoming anyones "wife"- these are wolves, not sheep. I have worked in prisons, and yes, your pansy-style pedophiles get very bad treatment- but your "rapist of opportunity" like this guy are not in that large of danger in the prison- anymore than anyone in jail is in danger.

There is no such thing as "hard labor" anymore- and trying to force someone into hard labor is "cruel and unusual punishment"- this is why I stated on another thread we need a constitutional amendment to redefine "cruel and unusual" as outright physical torture and harm, not "missing my favorite cable show".

That being said, prisons are not comfy places to stay- and in fact, quite brutal, no matter what some conservatives say. But evil poeple thrive behind these bars, living for the day when the system turns again and frees them- and there are pretty good odds that, if given "life without possibilty of parole"- that he will still be a free man someday if he stays somewhat healthy behind bars.

Oops- DTOM posted before I did- and made the same point in a different manner!

So let me understand this...because our Justice system failed us..and failed us horribly..we are advocating instead to kill any of those we may consider harmful to society to ensure public safety. Rather than demand that our Justice system serve and protect us and do so without failure we are content to allow this flaw to stand..and exist.. and attempt to correct it by bypassing it.

We pay people in this country heaps of money to protect and serve us..and then we let them get away with being such irreversible failures at it. So kill this man...how does that prevent another child being swept off the streets and murdered? He is certainly one of many. How has that really made the streets safer? As if we could keep our death machines running at a pace to out do the unjust done in our society day after day. Besides what do you propose to do...are we going to start a process of violence elimination by killing off "the species" ....that all falls into that evil is born..and evil can be recognized theory.

Why not push our efforts into actions that will matter more...why not make the streets safe so our kids can walk them? Why not ask our Justice system to ensure that the guilty pay for their crimes? Why are people come out of prison meaner, more aggressive and even more of a threat to society?

Seems to me the argument is these people are dangerous and that we have so little faith in our system in place that we feel the only means to ensure our safety is to take their life. I just don't understand why we are so accepting of this failure of ours..and why we don't demand the system to be fixed before the death of a child occurs. Why does it have to go this far for people to be demanding accountability. Children being murdered should not be the cue for the public to start becoming angry. Just the fact that I feel our streets aren't safe enough for my children to be out alone in and that I am not trusting enough of our system to protect me and my family makes me angry.

Firstly, one cannot really separate the issue of accidentally executing the innocent, or false conviction due to non-judicial influences from any real debate on Capital Punishment, since it is one of the most critical problems with the system.

However, as you have decided to debate this issue within a very narrow set of confines, then we will go with it.


Essentially, your argument comes down to, these people have committed crimes that are nastier than than the usual murders, and thus the state should execute them. People in the thread have argued such red herrings as: How can anyone say these people do not deserve death, and some such.

Nobody claimed these people do not, by some general public moral standard, deserve death. Personally, when I hear of these crimes I am filled with revulsion, I concur that they deserve to die.

The question is, should the state get into the business of killing people? Should the state seek out revenge for the slain?

The judicial system of the west is based on impartial laws, and is specifically designed not to be swayed by the emotional outburst of those related to the slain, that is what separates the codified legal system from institutionalized vigilantism.

Many people the law sets free on lesser charges due to an assortment of reasons (legal loopholes, violation of rights of the accused) probably "deserve" to be in jail. That does not give the state the right to place them there based on that alone.

The government cannot set up killing as the be all and end all of crime in our society, and then kill those who do it. The rest of the Western world has realised that while we deplore certain acts, and we may hate those who commit them, we must act within the bounds of civilised society when it comes to retribution.

If you wanted to talk about eliminating mandatory appeals at the discretion of a jury, or making sure that life in prison really means life in prison, then make that case, and I may well listen.

But killing people because you, out of personal revulsion and emotional response, fell that they "deserve" to die is hypocritical and wrong, and the state should have no part in it. If you believe in God, then these people will pay their penance in the hereafter. If you do not, then the knowledge that they spend the rest of their lives in a box surrounded by the worst society has to offer should be good enough.

I do not argue for the death penalty because I would seek mercy for the extreme cases of criminality, but because we as a society and our government as its representative should not be in the business of meeting out revenge at the cost of the lives of its citizens.


Then, there is the innocent convicted, and non-judicial influences on conviction arguments, but we can leave that for another thread.

I agree with the death penalty in this case, but the real problem here is that his prior sentences were so short! This is really an injustice on society.

There are some people out there that are simply predators. As such they need to be put down.
As far as I am concerned, and we will use the Florida case, Anyone with such complete disregard for another person's life that they think it ok to sate their desires through the torture and infliction of terror of another human being deserves nothing else but death. There is NO philosophical distinctions to be drawn, no "they were failed by the system".
This peice of garbage had so many chances in life. He was provided many opportunites to turn his life around.
Instead he got his jollies and probably his rocks off with the body of an 11 year old girl. Carlie Brucia probably spent the last few moments of her life the plaything of a monster and paralyzed with fear. I really don't want to try and figure what went thru her mind. I don't want to know the details of what she suffered. I know that if she was my child I would probably go insane knowing she probably prayed desperatly for someone, anyone, to come to her rescue.
Somebody like Joseph P Smith doesn't deserve another breath.
People who do these sorts of things do not deserve to live on this world. I feel no sympathy for these kinds of animals.


The acts of people like these go so far beyond the pale as to simply be monstrous.
There is nothing hypocritical about killing them. They have earned their fate with interest. The state should have every part in it because the State is we, and we have every right to protect ourselves from these types of animals.
and the final for this quote is no, It isn't good enough.




The present state of our system has NOTHING to do with this issue.
There are out there animals who pretend to be human. They get off on the stuff they do. In the end we all have choices. I do not care about how hard your life was. When you cross the line and take the life of another human being you have trespassed so far beyond the boundries of any acceptable extreme. When you step even beyond that limit and feed your depravity through the torture of another, of as close to an innocent as you can get without it being newborn, you have started on a path which has only one end. Your Death.
As for the system it has been gutted by all those who don't think anyone should be accountable for their own actions to the point you can not only commit murder but use 11 year old girls as disposable sex toys. All you have to worry about is doing some time. Maybe if you are small you will get raped. Not Justice by any means.




Yep, It won't even be your fault. Some shrink will create your cause. Mommy was mean to you. "It was only sex" "he got overexcited and she accidently died" OOps. Not his fault. Society failed him Right. Ri-ight!

Okay, assuming we have a fool proof justice system, and those convicted of the worst of the worst violent murders actually commited the crime are sentenced to die, how can I be against the death penalty?
Because I don't believe that one person has the right to take another person's life. I don't even believe twelve people have the right to decide to take another person's life. Even the states that do believe in taking lives must see some problems with killing killers - since the methods/mechanisms for killing are set up so that no single person takes the persons life. Take lethal injection - there are several injections administered by several doctors. Neither injection in and of itself would kill the prisoner, but combined it is deadly. But more than one person gives the injections (actually, more than one person pushes a button to auto deliver the injection) so that the executioner is as separated from the murder as possible.

Now I am sure we could find people who would gladly go back to the middle ages and chop peoples heads off and have no qualms about killing these people. But then, IMO someone like this is as evil and as much of a monster as whoever they are killing - its just the executioner is killing legally. Legal killing? This is entirely reprehensible. Its even stranger when a death row inmate attempts suicide, but if caught before he dies, all possible measures are exhausted to extend their life until the date of their execution... because the state has to be given its chance to fulfill some (IMO) sick and evil desire to kill.

But then, my argument is moral - its morally wrong to kill another person. Those who do should be punished by life in prison (where life in prison means the rest of their natural life). And I suppose those who support the death penalty have either employed some reasoning to make themselves (and the state) seem morally superior for their form of murder or they simply like the idea of killing those they deem "unworthy" of living (hmm, where have I heard that before?).

For all these people who argue that killing is morally wrong and the state should not be in the business of killing. In my view depriving someone of his liberty is also morally wrong. Should the state be prevented from locking people up?

The problem here is that these murderers are getting 3 square meals a day, recreational time and the ability to practice a hobby(ever watch VH1) or even get a college degree.

Where is the anger and outrage because the victim will never be able to have another meal, enjoy their hobbies, or learn anything again?

I hope this country stops and takes a look at itself. Because we are becoming more concerned over the welfare of the criminals rather than that of the victims.

I disagree with this argument. It is not revenge that the families of the victims want, it is justice. Justice for the victim or victims. If person A murders person B in cold blood, person A is effectively taking away person B's right to life. A state which then allows person A to maintain his or her right to life, the very thing the perpetrator took from person B, performs an injustice primarily to the deceased and secondarily to the survivors of the deceased.

You beleive your stance is moral. That does not make it so.



Yep right here. Won't keep me up at night. There is also a huge difference between the two. I don't go out at night and kill people. I don't commit crimes to support a drug habit and kill someone who wouldn't hand over their wallet fast enough. I don't rape and slaughter 11 year old girls or 78 year old women. I don't lure people into my home and torture and kill them time and time again. If you cannot see the difference YOU scare me more than the animals that perform these acts.

You are blowing this issue out of proportion when you act as though
things would snowball to the point that we'd be "killing off the species."
We SHOULD kill off the species known as the child rapers/murderers.
There is no act worse than the sexual violation and murder of a child.
It is beyond reprehensible. If a man is going to commit the ultimate
act against an innocent child, his life should not only be taken from
him, but it should be done so in a timely manner. Period.

If you want to spend time and energy fighting for the rights of
individuals wo would do the same thing to your child, if they had
the chance, go ahead. I prefer that we look evil in the eye, and
obliterate it. Sorry, you rape and kill a child, you don't deserve
rehabilitation. And, for the record, there is no rehabilitating someone
who is that far down in the gutter of evil.

Yes, I agree DP- the first mistake the total anti-death penalty side makes is assuming that these poeple are human beings. My wife put it best once, with her limited English (at that time) saying "Oh, they look human, and masquerade well as human, but do not be fooled, they do not have human behavior or human feelings or human thoughts"- she was talking about the type of poeple that relished thier work with Stalin- but the same fits here.

Yes, the only true argument IMO is the conviction of innocents, the uneven application of the death penalty, the fact we only execute the poor etc, but in this particular case, where we have evidence on video tape, or with Polly Klaas, DNA evidence, where guilt is a foregone conclusion, and there not only no shadow of a doubt, but no doubt whatsoever, then I have never been able to understand the logic of keeping these poeple alive. It frankly baffles me .

You know what I think it is, CR - some people do not have the
ability to put themselves in the shoes of another. I would bet
my bottom dollar that if one of these "child murderer" supporters
were to lose their child in such a way, they might then understand
the depth to which evil exists in this world.

Until then, they will act high and mighty, as if they are being
humanitarians by finding empathy for the sub-humans who commit
these attrocities. There is evil in this world. It comes in many
forms. When it is recognized it must be dealt with in an absolute way!

Well- I believe in the sanctity of HUMAN life- and once you stop acting like a human, you cease to be one IMO.

It doesn't have to be so extreme as losing ones child ( interesting side note, Mr. Klaas said "I didn't used to really have an opinion on the death penalty, and Richard Allen Davis is not contemplating what he has done while in jail, he is only trying to get off death row, he has no remorse, so the only time he will be forced to contemplate his crime will be shortly before they actually kill him. I am now pro-death penalty")

Just working with these predators disguised as humans will cure all anti-death penalty for anyone types. I have seen some rabidly anti-death penalty social workers, nurses and doctors, that after a few years of working with socio paths and psycho paths, recognize that the death penalty is very appropriate in certain areas.

It is just too bad we are so bad at getting just the guilty in this country, because, except for cases of no doubt of guilt capital murder trials, I am against the death penalty because of the abuse of the system itself.

My God this is just the worst form of argumentation.

Yes, you are right, by opposing the Death penalty I MUST be a Child murderer supporter. I am an advocate for Child Murder, and think Child murderers should be rewarded for their crimes with free houses and flowers, and they get a bonus new car if they rape the child before they murder them. Up with Child rapists! I am starting a support group for those poor child rapists and murderers and the discrimination they face...

Get off it. Had you read anything I posted earlier, I (and I suspect most-anti death penalty people) am NOT a fan of child murderers, nor do I believe they deserve special mercy or anything else.

I did however clearly explain that it should not be the role of the state to seek revenge, nor to murder its citizens. So in several posts following, what has the answer been?

"They are not human", "they deserve to die" and so on. Well great, I am glad your emotional response is to loathe these people, thats healthy, but the entire point of our justice system is that decisions are not taken on the basis of emotional response. Thats what separates Justice from vigilanteism. They may well 'deserve to die' but that does not mean it should be the job of the state to murder them. Yes, these people are human, just very, very bad humans. If pretending they are something sub-human makes it easier for you to kill them then thts fine as a self-justification (One that has been used numeous times through history I might add) but it is of course patently untrue.

I dont care if these rapists and murderers live or die, but I firmly believe that it is not up to the state, a judge and 12 men and women to kill them.


Lastly, there is no more stupid an argument regarding the death penalty debate then "Well if your daughter was raped and murdered, you would want the person killed!"

Yes, clearly I would. I would also want them killed if she was just raped, or if she were beaten up in a parking lot. Hell, I would want killed the person who keyed my car. So what? Justice has NOTHING to do with the visceral reactions of the family of the victim. The entire reason a system of justice was first codified thousands of years ago was to take the administration of judgement and punishment OUT of the hands of the bereaved. This is one of the great steps in civilisation.


Tell you what, if any of you want to argue for the death penalty (in this very tight silo in which we cannot mention the obvious failing of the system) feel free to actually make a case for it OTHER than "They are bad!!"

I am sickened by your comments DP..personal attack removed..all because their view differs from you. I can not believe anyone would find it acceptable to hope or wish and then put that little chant into written words..that a mother would loose a child in a horrid act of violence in hopes of achieving your "enlightenment". personal attack removed

Vermillion,

When you say "our" justice system are you referring to yours, in
Canada? Because we are at America's Debate, thus, we are discussing
America and the death penalty.

I gave my opinion on this matter, and it is a strong opinion. It is un-
fathomable, it is EVIL, it is beyond forgiveness, to do what has been
done to the girl named Carlie, in Florida, to Polly Klaas, and to countless
other victims who lost their rights when they were murdered.

If you feel inclined to take up the cause for such individuals, whose guilt is
undeniable, that's your prerogative. Make no mistake, my response
is not merely emotional. It is logical and practical. I'm interested in
doing what is the most beneficial for my fellow-citizens, who are trying to
live their lives and raise their kids, and need a safe environment to do so.

Any individual who takes the life of another, in such a heinous and, yes,
SUB-HUMAN way, has relenquished his right to have my respect, my concern,
my empathy.

Why should the state not be the one to decide on such matters?
If they do not decide, then who will? Vigilantes will.

If you truly THINK that these rapists/murderers (the ones that have been
absolutely proven guilty) are as deserving of life as the rest of us are, then
go to the picket line for these cockroaches. You will not be alone out there.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Bucket,

You have taken my post and twisted it around to mean something else than
what was intended.

I do NOT want it to happen to anyone, that is why I am for the death
penalty for these creatures. Please do not turn this into a personal thing.
We are debating an issue. I'm not interested in any cat-fights.

A lot of people have lofty ideas as to what is best for the human race. They
also greatly underestimate the depths of evil that can exist within the human soul.

As a mother, as a human being, as someone who believes in protecting and
helping my fellow-man, I am a proponent for the death penalty. We
must protect our children at all costs. The only way we can ABSOLUTELY
guarantee that these criminals do not go on to do any more damage is to
impose the death penalty.

The reason I want the death penalty for people that have multiple violent convictions followed by a murder that is beyond any doubt, such as the one in Florida, is precisely because there is a very good chance, that "no possibility of parole" is simply not happening. There is a very good chance, that, if he gets to serve "life in prison" that he will be able to walk eventually, that is just the cyclical nature of our system. 25 years from now, some judge may decide he has been punished enough and let him out. This happens all the time, including this particular case, where the judge did not even issue a bench warrant for his numerous parole violations. This is just the nature of the system. To kill this scum would insure this never happens.

Yes, I have no problem calling someone sub-human for BEHAVIOR indicating them to be something other than human. It is similar to the word predjudice I suppose- thinking that the negative connotations of the word predjudice makes all prejudice bad. There is a problem being predjudiced based on race or religioun, but not BEHAVIOR- i.e.- hating all pedophiles and thier behavior and refusing them what would normally be equal opportunities based on BEHAVIOR.

These animals have shown through BEHAVIOR that they are not human, and I refuse to consider them as such. I think it is just fine if all of society thought of them as sub-human, perhaps lower than snails even , and have the same "emotional" feeliings to thier being removed from earth.

The very chance that this guy might walk the earth once again, even if it is 1/10 of 1% is too much of a risk, so let's kill him, in an unemotional way!

But you are , if you will, "fixing the dyke by blowing it up".


I agree, these people should not be allowed out once they have committed crimes of such magnitude. So mprove the sentencing structure, make the lable of "dangerous offender" more withing the perview of the judge. Fix the existing system rather than engaging in institutionalised murder because there may be some cracks in the system.

Please refer to my post 3 above. You failed to address anything I said there, and repeated points I had already dealt with without further argumentation or support. It is possible you missed them, I invite you to look again.

I have a good friend that’s been traveling to Cuba on business recently as part of the partial embargo lift and he shared with me an interesting observation. Each courthouse he saw (and was told they’re all the same) has a firing squad yard out back.

I immediately started looking at their violent crime rate and until a slight increase in Havana, Cuba had one of the lowest violent crime rates in the world. And yes, the guilty go straight from the defendants chair to target practice.

A deterrent, I’ll let you decide. Should these ‘without a doubt guilty’ types be given the same treatment? Absolutely.

The most recent figures I could find estimates the cost of incarcerating a federal prisoner is about $39K per year.

Who deserves that money more? These types or a law abiding disabled vet? Or a 78 year old law abiding woman with no family who can’t take care of herself?

And I agree with the others who question why this guy was even walking free. I think we need to follow the example of the Sheriff in Arizona who didn’t let inmates out early because of over crowding. He put them in tents with cots, no AC, no smokes, no TV, nothing.

At’s the ticket.

I have spent a great deal of time in Cuba, and this is completely untrue. The justice system in Cuba is somewhat draconian by our standards, but nothing like what your 'friend' would have you believe.

Cuba does have one of the lowest violent crime rates around. So did the Soviet Union until the mid 1980s. The advantages of a complete police state I suppose, but I think you will agree the reasons why in the USSR went far beyond thair having the Death penalty.


In the united states, repeated studies of states which have, or had then eliminated the death penalty have shown that it does not act as a deterrant, even most serious death penalty advocates do not maintain that anymore.

Right - my mistake - I should have said my stance is religious - based on my belief in Christ and his teachings and that I have derived my sense of morality from these beliefs, etc, etc...


Many of the arguments I see for the death penalty point out the cushiness of the country's prisons and the cost of keeping an inmate and use these as good reasons to go ahead and kill a person? This is ridiculous. If the prisons are so nice and they serve as no deterrent for crime - then shouldn't we be looking to reform the prisons? Make them work camps - teach them to sew and they can work 10 hours a day sewing pant hems (if you've never done it, it is much more grueling work than it sounds - and has the added benefit of being done INSIDE the prison so less likely for prisoner escape - unlike prisoners doing something like road work). Instead of sending the manufacturing jobs out of country, why not have the companies pay the prisons the same wage they would pay for some asian child to do it and it can go to the prisoners room and board.

Oddly enough, despite my stance on execution, I don't like murderers, child rapists, etc. I know what it means to be a victim and worse to see the criminal walk free. I think our justice system has become skewed to help the accused more than serve justice for the victim - much of it probably because the best lawyers are more inclined to make the big bucks instead of serve and protect the public. I also think many modern prisons have been designed like some cushy drug rehab. This needs to be changed. I don't think prisoners should get cable or AC - I don't have cable or AC... I don't think they deserve weight rooms or libraries, etc... I have a long list of gripes about the easy life of prisoners.
But this is because I want them to suffer. If I were in control of the prisons, the prisoners would be chained to the walls with no beds to sleep on, just a cold hard floor. They would not have any windows or sunlight - only a few lights in the hallways. They would be forced to work to earn their food and clothes - b/c every day they are in prison they would be charged a fee by the state.

But, I also realize this goes against my religous convictions, and am glad the running of the prisons is out of my very emotional and vindictive hands. But, I still vote for those officials who pledge to reform our prisons so they are no longer revolving door hotels - but places no one wants to go or wishes to return to.

I know this all seems somewhat off topic - but my point is that just because our prison systems and court systems have flaws, this is no reason to go ahead and kill those we deem the worst of the worst. The Cuba reference is interesting, but it is also worth noting that my best friends grandparents can never set foot in Cuba again, or they will face the firing squad. Not because they were serial killers, or because they molested children - but because they spoke out against Castro. Just as in Nazi ruled Germany, the crime and murder rate was very low - but then, the psychopaths were being employed in the death camps for the "legal" state sanctioned murders - giving these individuals a legal outlet for their twisted fantasies. So, perhaps there is a good reason to bring back the middle ages executioner - if we employed all the crazy potential serial killers (who would commit their crime no matter what the penalties as it is part of their pathology to believe they are invincible and could never be caught) as executioners, and the state supplied them with victims - maybe our murder rates would decrease? But then, this argument is as crazy and without justification as "go ahead and kill them because the prisons are not mean enough and the courts aren't tough enough".

Just as some say they have never seen a good argument against the death penalty, I will state I have never seen a good argument for the death penalty. And considering what I have based my opinion on, I probably never will b/c this does all come down to moral/religious/ethical based opinions.

RK – like yourself, a lot of my beliefs are founded in religion and as a regular church attendee I too struggled with this issue. And at one time like yourself I thought these types should be made to suffer.

But from our perspective (founded in religion) which is more in line with our values? Making some one suffer, or giving them the option to make peace with their maker, He does forgive all, ending their life and let them move on to better things?

I become a bit harsher about the money we spend on these types especially during times like these. Law abiding citizens are having social services cut while an incarcerated murder receives better health care than most working types. Something is fundamentally wrong here, the wrong people are suffering.

I don't see that Guilt, or the fact that you know for certain or not that the person is guilty has anything to do with it.

I was a supporter of the death penalty for a long time, with many reservations. My reservations have grown to the point that I can no longer support it under any circumstances.

Jamie Ullman, a local reporter in St. Louis was talking about a story about how the new bishop for the Catholic church in the area called for catholic lawmakers to oppose abortion or face sanction from the church.

In reporting the story he recounted how he had a priest who once said to the membership that they should support "pro-life" candidates. Jamie Ullman said "I don't see any pro-life candidates" referencing the fact that so many oppose the taking of life in abortion but not crime.

I agree. On the subject of the death penalty I oppose the taking of life as retribution for crime. Nothing is gained by society and there is a risk that something is lost.

I have heard the argument that it is a version of self-defense for society. Well, the person is already imprisoned. Society is safe. Now the subject of parole should be addressed for sure. I support Natural Life (in prison until the person dies) sentence without the possibility of parole.

There is the argument that keeping prisoners in prison cost too much. Well, more people on death row die from natural causes then for their sentence every year. And it cost 1/3+ more annually to keep someone on death row then in the general population.

There are those that say it deters crime. I have yet to see one statistic from any state that has the death penalty that supports this. For it to deter crime it would require would be criminals to consider the consequences of their actions. Very few criminally minded folks do this, it is primarily why they are criminals.

From what I can see, society gains nothing from the death penalty. What we loose, is the occasional innocent person who is put to death, not to mention that there are some criminals that commit horrible crimes and actually do turn their lives around in prison. Even though they are few, I do not see why we should loose these few when there is no gain for society from killing the others rather than committing them to a Natural Life sentence without the possibility of parol.

Lastly, like abortion, I feel the death penalty is a piece of the overall puzzle that has slowly cheapened the value of life and individuals in this country. If we are to turn ourselves around and try to return to being a civilized society then we need to put barbaric practices behind us.

Personally, if I committed a horrible crime I would rather face death than face life in a prison. The horrors that are prison life more then outweigh death in my mind. To me, we give those that get the death penalty and easier sentence. Let them live their lives in prison with other predators.

I know there are those that feel it is right. Eye for and Eye and all that. But, if society gains nothing from killing these criminals rather than keeping them in prison until the die, then why bother?

If one person committed to death row managed to turn their life around so that they ended up helping others in prison turn themselves around when they got out (even though the killer would never get out) is it not worth keeping them alive?

Vermillion,

Let me start by saying that I fully understand you are not a fan
of criminals who murder innocent people.


Now, you say that you do not think these murderers deserve special
mercy. Letting them live is showing them special mercy. Even
if they are behind bars for the rest of their lives, there will be someone
making sure they are fed, clothed, warm, given medical care, etc.
That's showing them too much mercy.

It is the states job to protect the law-abiding citizens, as well as the
innocent children, from such horrific acts. When imposing the Death
Penalty, the state is not committing "murder". The man being
sentenced to death is the one who committed murder. The state is
enforcing the penalty for breaking the law.

News flash: If a man can keep from raping
and murdering another human being he won't have to be put to death
FOR raping and murdering another human being.

One of the reasons that I support the death penalty is precisely because a viable and fair alternative, a life of grueling penance and hard labor will never come to pass as a form of criminal justice.

Death at the hands of the state has never been a form of justice. It's barbaric, really. It's often handed down to black men, where white women receive life for the same crime. Or, someone whose lawyer is better gets off. Poverty and race are two definitive factors that have been well-documented in arguments against the death penalty.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=45&did=528 - Race (details racial disparity of prosecutions from 1988-1994)



Have you ever read about Secure Housing Units (SHUs) in California? That's pretty nasty treatment to prisoners to me. If you were to put condemned men in those, commute their sentences to life without parole and effectively deny them the appeals process, then you'd be saving money while ensuring the torment that you want these guys to go through.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.ph...nancial%20facts - Some basic financial facts of how much it actually costs.

Based on this new information, are you still prepared to spend that kind of money to execute murderers rather than locking them away in a hellhole for the rest of their living days?

Again, I am sorry, in all of these posts you have made you have yet to make an actual argument.

I understand your point completely, you say they are animals, they deserve to die, they should be killed, letting them live is "too much mercy"... All rephrasings of the same point, that your emotional reaction to these crimes is severe, and you would wish a sentence imposed on these people equal to your emotional reaction.

However, as I have explained numerous times, the legal system has nothing to do with your emotional reaction, in fact, the system has been carefully designed so that the decision is NOT based on the knee-jerk reactions of those affected.

Your revulsion is normal, and in fact healthy, but in essence, the state does not and should not care how revolted you are. The law is based on logic, and seeks to impose reasonable sentences that fall within the parameters of modern civilisation on criminals.

Lets put it another way, child rapists and murderers also revolt me, and I think death is too easy, therefore I believe, based on my visceral reaction, that they should be tortured to death.

However, the state does not make decisions based on my visceral reaction, and torturing someone to death no matter how much they may deserve it is considered barbaric and cruel and is not done. In most of the rest of the western world, the same applies to state murder.

Some have claimed that the system is broken, that the state releases these people on the street too early. Fine, I might even agree, fix the existing system so that dangerous offenders are never released. That is no excuse to kill people.



This is called a tautology, something you make true by your own definition.

"The state is not committing murder, because the state says it is allowed to kill people, so the state is just following the law."

That is a tautology, and a logical dead end. It is murder because it is killing someone, after the fact, with no threat to self or others (the person is incarcerated at this point) It is first degree murder, planned premeditated murder.

The fact that the state, the perpetrator of the crime, passed a law saying it is ok is irrelevant, thats like saying opression of blacks by the state in South Africa was fine because the South African government passed an Aparteid law saying it was ok. Killing is wrong, and the state has no business getting involved in revenge.


I have said it three times without answer, I will repeat it a fourth: I would love for someone to make an argument, ANY argument for the death penalty which is not based around the emotional gut reaction of "they are really bad".

Well, that would depend on if you consider yourself a Christian or not. "Thou Shall Not Kill" That's all there is in the Ten Commandments. There are no "Unless..." Clauses too it. I am frequently amazed at those "Christians" that fight against Abortion but support the death penalty. I was one of them for a long time. But, logic simply doesn't support it, and neither does doctrine.


There are many reasons why the death penalty serves no purpose as has been detailed out in other posts in the thread. The most simple of which is that we take so long to apply it that more people on death row die of natural causes then having their sentence imposed. It costs, depending on the state anywhere from 33% to 50% more to house someone on death row then in the general population. If nothing else it simply isn't cost effective.

For prison to be a deterrent and for there to be justice in the face of such horrible crimes we need to change the system. "natural" life ssentences without the possibility of parole need to be used. And without the possibility of parole needs to be used in other cases far more frequently.

Now I've seen the inside of a prison. It certianly isn't the country club life people suggest but I do not think that things like Cable TV are necessary. Prison is not supposed to be comfortable, it's just supposed to be humane.

Take a look at the "jail" of that Sheriff in Arizona. A Tent city where the Prisoners where pink, eat gruel and work all day long. That is what prison needs to be for it to be a deterrent and just.

You've seen the inside of a prison. Okay. Have you seen the
the body of a child who has been raped and viciously murdered?
Have you seen the effects on the parents and family of such
a victim? I bring this up because it is important to remember
WHY the death penalty exists. It's not for the guy that just
cannot keep his claws off of other people's tv sets. It's not
for the repeat drug offender. It's not even for the guy who
rapes women over and over again. It's for the person who
commits an act that is so far out of the realm of "humanity"
that there is simply no way he can be allowed to remain a
part of our society. If he is given a life sentence he still remains
a part of society. He is given rights, even as a prisoner,
that he should no longer be entitled to.

I appreciate what the sherriff in Arizona is doing. It's a wonderful
deterrent for your average, run-of-the mill, would-be criminal.

But, we are talking about crimes so gruesome and evil that
they cannot be remedied with a pink jumpsuit and hard labor.

A member of society in Prison? Well, a member of prison society perhaps. But a natural life sentence would permanently remove these offenders from free society.

Rights? The right to due process, the right to food, shelter, the right not to be abused. No right to freedom, free expression, or pursuit of happiness.

Prison life does need to be addressed and hardened, however, a NATURAL life sentence would remove the threat from society, and be at least as much of a deterrent as the death penalty (which statistically seems to be not much of one).




Wow, ok. I've lived in an inner-city neighborhood in Kansas City where gunfire was typical and there was a dozen crack houses within the 18 blocks of what would become our neighborhood association. I have seen crime, loss and victimization. I worked in a field that brought me face to face with criminals who would choose to attack guys like me rather then risk arrest, and I have personally run out of my apartment in the middle of the night to catch criminals attempting to break into homes in the neighborhood or assaulting neighbors. Most importantly I personally have lost a friend to murder. He was attacked and killed because he dared to be gay. Criminals and I have known each other well.

The system supports Criminals over victims. We need to work to change this.

Prisons are way to comfortable to be a deterrent. Heck, I've known guys who immediately committed a crime after their release from prison just to get caught and be sent back. This needs to be changed.

Violent criminals need to be put away for long periods of time without the possibility of parole and murderers need to be put away for good. We need to work on this.

Killing a criminal, even the worst mass murderer does nothing more for society then putting that same criminal away until they die of natural causes would do. What it risks is killing those who were wrongly convicted (which does happen on occassion to those who can't afford anything beyond a public defender).

Under the current system, it cost more to give someone the death penalty the it does to keep them in prison until they die of natural causes. This is because states spend 1/3 to 1/2 more on death row inmates then the general population and because we allow so many appeals to those given the death penalty that people given the death sentence are more likely to die of natural causes then from their sentence.

Lastly, there is no evidence whatsoever that the death penalty is a deterrent at all.

So why do it? What is gained other then revenge?

See, it is none of the stated reasons above that I wish for the death penalty, it is pure public safety and really nothing more. Killing those that are undeniably guilty is a very final thing- there is no possiblity of escape, parole or a change in the idea of justice in his lifetime this way.

I think going about fixing the sentencing structure of redifineing and enforcing "life without parole" is the wrong direction. I think instead, we should reform the justice system to ensure that we actually get the guilty party more often instead of the lazy system we have now that whenever a prosecuter thinks he has a suspect, they just focus on that and never attempt to re-determine of thier guy is really guilty.

If we could assure that we executed only the guilty, I would be all for super-expanding the death penalty to: rape, murder, pedophilia, fraud involving over 250,000 dollars (such as all the Enron and S&L and junk bond players) , and anyone convicted of thier fourth VIOLENT crime- not because it will neccesarily deter crime, habitual criminals have this delusion each and every time that they will not be caught, but to keep take away the pool of repeat offenders. All the above mentioned poeple represent such a great danger to the innocent that thier very existance, even behind prison walls, is dangerous.

Prisons are not comfortable, they are not nice, and they are usually not even clean. Only the rich "club fed" type places really have anything at all, but they are not for the guys we are talking about, are they?

Prison is not a nice place, but poeple escape, capitalize on loopholes that make no sense, and can get lucky and get a stupid judge, and that is why I wish to take away those variables, permanently.

It's very, very hard to escape a supermax prison. I would go as far to say that no one has ever escaped a supermax prison in the time they've been implemented.

Death is arguably a better escape for the people that commit these crimes than LWOP (Life Without Parole) sentences in supermax prisons. If you consider the conditions of living in a supermax security prison, as well as the costs of keeping someone behind bars for the rest of their lifetime (average 40 years, here), it's three times the cost in Texas to execute that same person. (source:
Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992).

Thus, if you put these people in a supermax prison like the one in Florence Colorado or Red Onion in Virginia, they wouldn't be able to escape, plus you'd satisfy the need for punishment that the American society so obviously craves to the monsters it creates.



How can you be infallible in proving the guilty, however? Too many innocent people have already been thrown in jail for extremely long sentences or executed, then exonerated on DNA evidence or a poorly run trial, bad trial lawyer, etc.

I agree with you that the system's often very lazy when it comes to proving guilt. If it is lazy, then why should the death penalty be even present? So more innocent people can be sentenced and then executed?



I'll pass on another dose of Chinese justice. Would you suggest a firing squad too and making the family pay for the bullet like China?

Yes, in the cases were guilt is not an issue, and of the crimes I listed above, firing squad and making the family pay for the bullet is fine by me- I have no problem with that whatsoever.

And once again, the reason I took the innocence issue out of this debate, and will start a seperate thread on it, is there definately needs to be a judicial reform in this country, with a near complete scrapping of many of the things in our system. Like I said, I will start a thread shortly so this doesn't get off topic.

Supermax prisons are frequently not even for the worst offenders, but rather the worst prisoners- i.e.- doesn't play well with others. The Ted Bundy's and John Wayne Gacy's would have never seen the inside of those places, because they were usually model prisoners when in jail (though Teddy escaped a county lockup a couple times as I recall).

So my question was always the one I can't understand others being opposed too- and usually I can see both sides of the issue- but for scum like this guy who killed the littel girl, it simply baffles me that anyone could oppose the death penalty for him. Guilt is not an issue, he was on video tape- rehabilitation is not an issue- he is a frequent offender. Prison he is used to, and plays the game, that no matter what, there is a chance he could walk.

First of all, you misunderstood me, if you think my support
of the Death Penalty is based strictly on "emotions."

I will reiterate why I believe the Death Penalty should be
imposed in cases like the recent one in Florida:

A murderer of that magnitude is in no way going to benefit society.
By his actions, he has proven he has no regard for the life of another.
He must be dealt with in such a way that will inhibit him from inflicting ANY
damage on anyone else. He knew what he was doing was deeply evil and
wrong, and he still did it, knowing full-well what the consequences could be.

You can look at it from a purely "unemotional" way if you choose, and still
come to the same conclusion. However, every law, to some degree, has
been created for emotional reasons. Life is an emotional experience.

In my neighborhood, a young child was seriously wounded by another
neighbor's dog. Guess what happened to the dog? We'll just say he's no
longer with us. Now, perhaps you could argue that the dog didn't know
what he was doing? It doesn't matter, because he needed to be put to
sleep to ensure no other children would be hurt by that animal.
Yes, the owner could promise to keep him locked up day and night.
There would still be a chance he'd get loose and do it again. The same
rule applies to the animal that took the life of an eleven year-old girl
in Florida.

Question: What is the benefit to society gained by putting such animals to death?

Question 2: How is is better then a "Natural Life" sentence without the possibility of parole that would ensure the criminal died in prison?

Question 3: Is the "benefit to society of putting the worst human animals to death worth the risk of potentially putting the innocent to death?

I am sorry, once again your listed reasons are nothing more than emotional outburst. I have yet to see an actual argument in this thread for why people should be put to death that goes beyond "well they are just bad".

[quote]
A murderer of that magnitude is in no way going to benefit society.
By his actions, he has proven he has no regard for the life of another. [quote]

So all murderers should be executed now, because they demonstrate they have no regard for the life of another? What about people convicted of rape, fraud and other crimes which demonstrate they do not care for the wellbeing or lives of their victims?

As for your first point, that is PURE emotional suppositrion. You have NO way of knowing what benefit to society the person might end up being, you have no knowledge of their character, their potential regrets, or for that matter anything about the case at all. You are willing to let some murderers live, but not others, because to YOU, the physical revulsion you feel over thier crime is more. That is an entirely emotional reaction, based on your personal situation, morals and beliefs. Another person migth think that killing a child is no worse than killing an adult, but that murder of the elderly is the most heinous version of murder. That would be THEIR opinion, the result of their emoptional considerations.

And do you know what? The law should not and does not care what either of you think. The law does not seek revenge based on what you personally feel.

[quote]
He must be dealt with in such a way that will inhibit him from inflicting ANY
damage on anyone else. [/quote]

Pro-death penalty people in this thread keep repeating and repeating this argument, as if the rest of us were advocating letting these people go. Of course not, as has been stated a half dozen times. I fully support revisiting prison sentences, and the application of dangerous offender status in the US, meaning these is no possibility of parole.But there are many, easy ways to silve the difficulties in the prison system without the state getting involved in murder.

Your parabole to the Dog is telling. Firstly, if it can be proven that a person did not know what theyw ere doing, they will not even be charged with murder. Secondly, this is not a dog, its a person.

I know you prefer to think of them as a dog, it makes it easier for you to rationalise away their lives (a tactic used several times throughout history, by the way, just consider them untermenschen) but despite your emotional ouburst, they are still people. They are people who have broken one of the ultimite laws of our society, and deserve harsh punishment, segregation and impruisonment for life. But to have the state murder them, to ask the government to commit the same crime that they are accused of doing, is hypocritical, uncivilised, and creates a state which is willing to commit first degree murder for the sake of revenge.

No need is served, no benefit is gained, there is NO PRACTICAL ADVANTAGE OR REASON WHATSOEVER to do this. You claim "oh they are evil and have no right to life". Thank you for your knee-jerk reaction, unsubstantiated by the entire purpose and process of the justice system. The rest of the western world all seem to have realised this, only the US still executes their captives, and yet they still have the highest rate of personal crime.

All of this of course, is without even getting into thefact that in the US we DO have innocent people sentenced to death, and we DO have a criminal justice system which executes people based on things unrelated to the crime in question, for example race and colour. Those FURTHER reasons why the death penalty is absurd are not even being discussed here.


I am almost getting tired of asking, I think this is my fifth time in this thread, still without answer: Can anyone give me a SINGLE reason FOR the death penalty execpt for the emotional reaction of "Oh, but they are bad"?