If a murderer is obviously guilty why would anyone be opposed to the death penalty?

Arkitech

Diamond Member
Apr 13, 2000
8,356
4
76
Govenor Ryan of Illinois just recently took 167 inmates off of death row. Among those 167 criminals here are a few of their outstanding crimes -



A woman and her boyfriend lured a 10 year girl into their car. After taking her back to their apartment this little girl was raped with a shoe and a hammer, they later used the same hammer to smash her skull while watching her die.

Another woman and her boyfriend wanted a baby, so they decided to follow pregnant woman home from a doctor's office. They broke into the woman's home and cut the 9 month fetus out of the victims body. To cover up the crime they stabbed the victims children to death aged 5 and 10.

A man and his uncle came up with a scheme to rob people of their valuables. They would pull their vehicles to the side of the road as if they had an accident and wave to the passing traffic for help. When a good samaritan would pull over to assist them one of the men would brandish a shotgun and demand their valuables after which he would take them into a field and murder them. Two of the victims were a recently engaged couple, the man who commited these crimes admitted under oath that he told them to kiss each other goodbye before shooting them to death.

A drunken man in a bar got into an altercation, after being thrown out of the establishment he went home and changed into army fatigues and equipped himself with several guns. He then went back to the bar and killed 4 people and wounded 16 others. During his trial he dared the judge to sentence him to the electric chair boasting that he had no fear of anything.


If a person is convicted of murder and their is no doubt that the person is guilty then they should automatically be terminated. America is one of the few countries where a man can kill people and be convicted and still end up back on the streets or force tax payers to spend their hard earned money on providing him with food, cableTV, a workout program and room and board. Even 3rd world countries have better justice than this.


THIS HAS TO STOP!!!
 

FeathersMcGraw

Diamond Member
Oct 17, 2001
4,041
1
0
Originally posted by: Arkitech

If a person is convicted of murder and their is no doubt that the person is guilty then they should automatically be terminated. America is one of the few countries where a man can kill people and be convicted and still end up back on the streets or force tax payers to spend their hard earned money on providing him with food, cableTV, a workout program and room and board. Even 3rd world countries have better justice than this.

Because it's been demonstrated that conviction does not necessarily mean "no doubt", even though the justice system would love for it to be so.

Opposition to capital punishment usually stems from the supposition that it's better to let guilty people live than have innocent people die, not from a lack of will to punish criminals.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
It depends on the circumstances. If the victim was someone like Steve Case from AOL I'd probably give the guilty party probation.
 

bGIveNs33

Golden Member
Jul 10, 2002
1,543
0
71
First off... the evidence would have to be proof upon all doubt reasonable and unreasonable for me. And then I still probably wouldn't want them killed. I say they work 6 days a week and rest on Sunday. There is no TV or radio. But that is just my opinion.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: bGIveNs33
First off... the evidence would have to be proof upon all doubt reasonable and unreasonable for me. And then I still probably wouldn't want them killed. I say they work 6 days a week and rest on Sunday. There is no TV or radio. But that is just my opinion.

That's not punishment, go to some remote parts of the country or Canada and people do that as part of their normal lives.

 

Arkitech

Diamond Member
Apr 13, 2000
8,356
4
76
Originally posted by: FeathersMcGraw
Originally posted by: Arkitech

If a person is convicted of murder and their is no doubt that the person is guilty then they should automatically be terminated. America is one of the few countries where a man can kill people and be convicted and still end up back on the streets or force tax payers to spend their hard earned money on providing him with food, cableTV, a workout program and room and board. Even 3rd world countries have better justice than this.

Because it's been demonstrated that conviction does not necessarily mean "no doubt", even though the justice system would love for it to be so.

Opposition to capital punishment usually stems from the supposition that it's better to let guilty people live than have innocent people die, not from a lack of will to punish criminals.

I'm not talking about simply convicted criminals, I'm talking about people who are guilty without a shadow of a doubt. Jeffrey Dahmer, John Gotti, these stupid gangbangers, etc.. Then there's these pyscho moms who kill their kids and blame it on non-existent people. These are the kind of convicted murderers that should get the death penalty. Take em right out of the court to the electric chair.
 

Arkitech

Diamond Member
Apr 13, 2000
8,356
4
76
Originally posted by: bGIveNs33
First off... the evidence would have to be proof upon all doubt reasonable and unreasonable for me. And then I still probably wouldn't want them killed. I say they work 6 days a week and rest on Sunday. There is no TV or radio. But that is just my opinion.

Why would you want a person who has no regard for someone else's life to continue living? And then allow them to have a day of rest, why would you give that kind of scum the privilege of life after they take someone else's. That is sickening.
 

GoingUp

Lifer
Jul 31, 2002
16,720
1
71
You ever hear George Carlins take on the Death Penalty?

I want fvckin Crucifixing Monday nights during the halftime show on Prime Time TV! :D
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,837
4,937
136
>"America is one of the few countries where a man can kill people and be convicted and still end up back on the streets or force tax payers to spend their hard earned money on providing him with food, cableTV, a workout program and room and board. Even 3rd world countries have better justice than this."<




Choose one:

A. Half truth at best.

B. Utterly spurious.

C. Full-on Big Beefy Bouncing Yarblockos!
 

Arkitech

Diamond Member
Apr 13, 2000
8,356
4
76
Originally posted by: feralkid
>"America is one of the few countries where a man can kill people and be convicted and still end up back on the streets or force tax payers to spend their hard earned money on providing him with food, cableTV, a workout program and room and board. Even 3rd world countries have better justice than this."<




Choose one:

A. Half truth at best.

B. Utterly spurious.

C. Full-on Big Beefy Bouncing Yarblockos!

Half truth my ass, I know of several people who were convicted of murder but yet they are free men (one is a relative). Maybe you need to read up on what REALLY goes on in prisons.

 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,022
17
81
Originally posted by: feralkid
>"America is one of the few countries where a man can kill people and be convicted and still end up back on the streets or force tax payers to spend their hard earned money on providing him with food, cableTV, a workout program and room and board. Even 3rd world countries have better justice than this."<




Choose one:

A. Half truth at best.

B. Utterly spurious.

C. Full-on Big Beefy Bouncing Yarblockos!
Does the name Willie Horton, give you a clue?
 

murphy55d

Lifer
Dec 26, 2000
11,542
5
81
I would rather see someone rot in prison for life than fry him. Lifetime solitary confinement and/or hard labor should be the penalty for murder.

I think it is worse punishment. Death would be a release from that, IMO.
 

GasX

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
29,033
6
81
If you commit murder you have lost your right to live on this planet.

However, I don't believe the state has the right to take your life from you.

Someone has to "push the button" and that in itself is murder.
 

Arkitech

Diamond Member
Apr 13, 2000
8,356
4
76
Originally posted by: murphy55d
I would rather see someone rot in prison for life than fry him. Lifetime solitary confinement and/or hard labor should be the penalty for murder.

I think it is worse punishment. Death would be a release from that, IMO.

Actually I agree thats a worse punishment but for some reason the goverment does'nt require prisoners to perform hard labor. Instead they sit on their asses all day reading books and wasting tax money by clogging up the judicial system with appeals.
 

bGIveNs33

Golden Member
Jul 10, 2002
1,543
0
71
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: bGIveNs33
First off... the evidence would have to be proof upon all doubt reasonable and unreasonable for me. And then I still probably wouldn't want them killed. I say they work 6 days a week and rest on Sunday. There is no TV or radio. But that is just my opinion.

Why would you want a person who has no regard for someone else's life to continue living? And then allow them to have a day of rest, why would you give that kind of scum the privilege of life after they take someone else's. That is sickening.

Because I don't believe man should play God. If God wants that man dead then he will do it himself. A murderer has taken something away from society and he needs to give it back. What exactly does killing him do? But, assuming there was unequivical evidence, I'm all for reforming our justice system to prevent crimes. If making a mandatory death penalty for all convicted(and by this I mean no doubt) murderers/rapist/child molesters would help prevent those crimes then lets do it. But, we don't live in a perfect society and our justice system is set up to protect the innocent from being convicted... so that idea isn't really feasible.
 

Arkitech

Diamond Member
Apr 13, 2000
8,356
4
76
Originally posted by: Mwilding
If you commit murder you have lost your right to live on this planet.

However, I don't believe the state has the right to take your life from you.

Someone has to "push the button" and that in itself is murder.

Someone has to enforce a certain degree of justice. I can understand where you're coming from but in order to try and keep a society from falling apart there has to be punishment enforced on individuals who have no respect for other peoples lives.
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,837
4,937
136


Half truth my ass, I know of several people who were convicted of murder but yet they are free men (one is a relative). Maybe you need to read up on what REALLY goes on in prisons.[/quote]


Sorry, That's incorrect. Please re-read the quote and try again. Hint: Read the whole statement...think about everything it says before you answer.

 

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,395
78
91
Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
You ever hear George Carlins take on the Death Penalty?

I want fvckin Crucifixing Monday nights during the halftime show on Prime Time TV! :D

He does have a point there. Prior to the 20th century the death penalty was carried out publicly for all to witness. We have now abstracted it behind closed doors where no one is exposed to it other than the witnesses at the prison. Perhaps if it were done publicly once again (not in the sensationalist manner he humorously described) it would have some deterrent factor.
 

notfred

Lifer
Feb 12, 2001
38,241
4
0
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: Mwilding
If you commit murder you have lost your right to live on this planet.

However, I don't believe the state has the right to take your life from you.

Someone has to "push the button" and that in itself is murder.

Someone has to enforce a certain degree of justice. I can understand where you're coming from but in order to try and keep a society from falling apart there has to be punishment enforced on individuals who have no respect for other peoples lives.

Europe has far less crime than the US, and they don't practice the death penalty. European society hasn't fallen apart for the lack of state sponsored killing. I can think of some countries that do use the death penalty, though. Iraq, Saudi Arabia.....
 

Arkitech

Diamond Member
Apr 13, 2000
8,356
4
76
Originally posted by: bGIveNs33
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: bGIveNs33
First off... the evidence would have to be proof upon all doubt reasonable and unreasonable for me. And then I still probably wouldn't want them killed. I say they work 6 days a week and rest on Sunday. There is no TV or radio. But that is just my opinion.

Why would you want a person who has no regard for someone else's life to continue living? And then allow them to have a day of rest, why would you give that kind of scum the privilege of life after they take someone else's. That is sickening.

Because I don't believe man should play God. If God wants that man dead then he will do it himself. A murderer has taken something away from society and he needs to give it back. What exactly does killing him do? But, assuming there was unequivical evidence, I'm all for reforming our justice system to prevent crimes. If making a mandatory death penalty for all convicted(and by this I mean no doubt) murderers/rapist/child molesters would help prevent those crimes then lets do it. But, we don't live in a perfect society and our justice system is set up to protect the innocent from being convicted... so that idea isn't really feasible.

If you want to bring God into this then maybe you should read the bible. According to the bible God gave instructions for dealing with murderers and rapists which was the sentence of death. I can understand you having some concern for people who may be innocent but were convicted anyway, however that should'nt have anything to do with people who are OBVIOUSLY guilty which is why I used that word in the thread title. Despite the fact that some people are wrongly imprisoned there are many murderers who are guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, THESE are the people who should get the death penalty.

 

bGIveNs33

Golden Member
Jul 10, 2002
1,543
0
71
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: bGIveNs33
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: bGIveNs33
First off... the evidence would have to be proof upon all doubt reasonable and unreasonable for me. And then I still probably wouldn't want them killed. I say they work 6 days a week and rest on Sunday. There is no TV or radio. But that is just my opinion.

Why would you want a person who has no regard for someone else's life to continue living? And then allow them to have a day of rest, why would you give that kind of scum the privilege of life after they take someone else's. That is sickening.

Because I don't believe man should play God. If God wants that man dead then he will do it himself. A murderer has taken something away from society and he needs to give it back. What exactly does killing him do? But, assuming there was unequivical evidence, I'm all for reforming our justice system to prevent crimes. If making a mandatory death penalty for all convicted(and by this I mean no doubt) murderers/rapist/child molesters would help prevent those crimes then lets do it. But, we don't live in a perfect society and our justice system is set up to protect the innocent from being convicted... so that idea isn't really feasible.

If you want to bring God into this then maybe you should read the bible. According to the bible God gave instructions for dealing with murderers and rapists which was the sentence of death. I can understand you having some concern for people who may be innocent but were convicted anyway, however that should'nt have anything to do with people who are OBVIOUSLY guilty which is why I used that word in the thread title. Despite the fact that some people are wrongly imprisoned there are many murderers who are guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, THESE are the people who should get the death penalty.

First off.... I never said anything about the Christian God.... Second of all, if you don't want to consider the people wrongly convicted then why even talk about it? If we lived in a society where there wasn't a need for deciding guilt or innocence, than certainly, they should die. But, we don't. If you want to talk hypotheticals than fine, but you can't talk about a real life subject and leave out convienent oppositions against your argument.