The death penalty.

[The_Cookster]

Never.

 

[Chris_s]

It wasn't my fault, I was temporarily retarded!

Supreme Court stays Florida execution

Man who killed police officer contesting method, claiming retardation

WASHINGTON - Florida death row inmate Clarence Hill won a last-minute Supreme Court stay Tuesday night about an hour after he was scheduled to be executed for killing a police officer.

It was not clear if the court’s intervention would only briefly delay Hill’s execution, which had been scheduled for 6 p.m. EST, to give justices additional time to review three separate stay requests.

Witnesses had gathered at the Florida State Prison for the execution, which was put off for more than an hour before word came from the court.

The witnesses were sent home after Justice Anthony M. Kennedy filed paperwork that said Hill’s death sentence would “be stayed pending further orderâ€

 

[Libertine]

if a preson kills:

- 10 or more adults
OR
- 5 or more children
OR
- 3 babies

they should be put down.

That's far too clinical, what if that person killed those people unknowingly or had to for some reason? What if they were mercy killings? What if someone killed 9 people and was then apprehended but the people he had killed were killed in a brutal and psychotic fashion? What if someone kills 9 adults 4 children and 2 babies? What if the person kills one person and gets caught and sentenced, then when released kills another few eventually making it to ten, and don't forget the 'double jeopardy' rule where no one can be tried for the same crime twice unless there is evidence of jury tampering or brand new evidence. If the death penalty is used it should be dealt with in the same way powers of arrest are now dealt with here in England, that is, the power of arrest can apply to any offence (whereas before it was based on the severity of the offence) so long as certain conditions apply and it's up to the constable to decide whether or not to use the power if it's available.

Sam

OH MY GOD! I just thought of something worse!
.
.
.
.
.
.
What if he was.......joking!

And thank you Chris, I really couldn't have put it better myself.

The argument that mistakes could be made is a very good one.
The argument that 'everyone has a right to life no matter what they've done' is a fucking stupid one that's often peddled by peace protesters and drama-students.

 

[maca2kx]

if a preson kills:

- 10 or more adults
OR
- 5 or more children
OR
- 3 babies

they should be put down.

That's far too clinical, what if that person killed those people unknowingly or had to for some reason? What if they were mercy killings? What if someone killed 9 people and was then apprehended but the people he had killed were killed in a brutal and psychotic fashion? What if someone kills 9 adults 4 children and 2 babies? What if the person kills one person and gets caught and sentenced, then when released kills another few eventually making it to ten, and don't forget the 'double jeopardy' rule where no one can be tried for the same crime twice unless there is evidence of jury tampering or brand new evidence. If the death penalty is used it should be dealt with in the same way powers of arrest are now dealt with here in England, that is, the power of arrest can apply to any offence (whereas before it was based on the severity of the offence) so long as certain conditions apply and it's up to the constable to decide whether or not to use the power if it's available.

Sam

OH MY GOD! I just thought of something worse!
.
.
.
.
.
.
What if he was.......joking!

And thank you Chris, I really couldn't have put it better myself.

The argument that mistakes could be made is a very good one.
The argument that 'everyone has a right to life no matter what they've done' is a **** stupid one that's often peddled by peace protesters and drama-students.

And there's one thing even worse than that! What if sarcasm's incredibly difficult to detect in the 2D world known as the internet!

As for Chris' example, will killing that guy bring back the officer? It won't actually be doing anything for them except reopening old wounds, the guy was killed over 20 years ago and I'm sure that his family are through the grieving process, sure it'd still hurt but all this legal action isn't going to help them at all.

I'm not saying that the death penalty shouldn't exist but it shouldn't be used in such a nonchalant manner and should be reserved for those who have committed strikingly sickening crimes and present a further risk to society and those in prison despite attempts at rehabilitation.

Sam

 

[Ted_Wolff]

Just throwing this argument out, but...

What's the difference between giving a criminal quick death via the death penalty and giving a criminal a slow death via a life sentence? Is it the hand (in)directly delivering death?

Can this be likened to the euthanasia argument about the morality of killing a terminal patient or letting them die slowly and naturally?

Is it the unnatural aspect that makes these two arguments incompatible or is it that the terminally ill patient does not choose his consequence like a criminal does?

 

[Haydi]

That's a nice argument, Ted_Wolff...

I think one big issue with both death penalty and euthanasia is that there is some other person or people who desides for them. Even though evidences are been made, It's still desided by someone else to end a life. I guess I just don't trust people to be capable to make desicions for other people's lives...

But if someone is sentenced to a life in prison without a chance of ever getting out, maybe it doesn't really differ from a death penalty. They still get to live, but is it worth something to live in jail? Maybe court also has some chance of correcting a possible mistake, but I don't think those kind of sentences are ever given without a absolute certainty.

It might be right to end someone else's life in certain cases, but how do you choose who to give the power to choose between someone else's life and death?

 

[Chris_s]

It won't actually be doing anything for them except reopening old wounds, the guy was killed over 20 years ago and I'm sure that his family are through the grieving process, sure it'd still hurt but all this legal action isn't going to help them at all.

I'm not saying that the death penalty shouldn't exist but it shouldn't be used in such a nonchalant manner and should be reserved for those who have committed strikingly sickening crimes and present a further risk to society and those in prison despite attempts at rehabilitation.

Sam

That is possible, that the family is upset with the legal ongoings, but it's even more possible that the family wants this man dead (or just as equally possible). The man was a stranger to this family until he killed their father, husband, or son. I think they'd be more on the side of the death penalty; it shouldn't be considered shocking when a family goes hard right after one of their family member has been slain (maybe even more so when that family member is an officer of the law). It is what it is.

I also don't believe the death penalty is given in a nonchalant manner, everyone has their day in court. Strinkingly sickening crimes is a relative term, that's why murderers are fried all across the Bible Belt. And to me, if you can kill another then you too can be killed -- and save your protesting please. We must not forget ourselves here, there are no romantic qualities about taking another's life, these people are criminals and should be handled as such. Nobody remembers the family of the slain victim, sure they remember the move to save the murderer on death row, but nobody remembers the family. In a way it's a good thing that this victim was an officer, I'm certain that his family is still visited by other officers from his station, you can't forget and you shouldn't want to either.
Rehabilitation for murderers is like painting a house that's on fire. How long does the new coat last and is it worth the risk?
A life for a life sounds horrible, but 10 lives for none is so much worse. Once you've crossed that line there isn't anything stopping you from doing it again. And what kind of punishment is life in prison for a murderer anyways? It's a slap on the wrist in comparison. A murderer is killing himself when he kills another, they go into the situation knowing that they're putting their own life on the line. Life in prison for a murderer is a million times sweeter than the death penalty, there is no better present a murderer could wish for.

 

[The_Cookster]

Hell, let's just kill everyone who isn't blonde, blue eyed and German. Wait a minute...

 

[Chris_s]

^ ^ Nowhere near the same in comparison, but okay! Wait a minute...

 

[LinksOcarina]

I have to agree with what Ted Said though, situations are also dependent on the cause. For example, if Saddam Hussein is given the death penalty, it would be the right idea. If some guy who killed his family is given it, it would be a waste in my opinion. Reason being, a life sentence is true torture over instant death. People in that situation would probably rather die than be in prison for the rest of their life.

Bottom line, the Death Penalty helps only in extreme circumstances, like if we execute Saddam, or Osama if we ever catch him, and wouldn't help in other cases like a guy who kills someone or a random person. Retribution is seen as quick by people who are grieving, and a slower death would be true torture for those who have tortured the family and friends by taking a life. This isen't Mesopotamia, and a life for a life is not always the case in the end.