Utah killer executed by firing squad

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

LOL, yep.

I may not be the most religious person in the world, but even I am not prepared to tell the big man he's wrong. IMO that's the epitome of arrogance. You'll have to fight that battle on your own.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

DNA evidence is far from being an exact science.

You may or may not be right but when the cases are slam dunks like the ones I mentioned then something swift and ruthless needs to be done. These guys in Conn. raped and killed an 11year old and an 17 year old along w/ the mother. They were killed by smoke inhalation ( after they were all raped) or burned alive. These two killers have 0 rights and should have their throats slit like they do in the middle east. I may sound barbaric but I don't care. My heart goes out to the victims and their famlies, not the killers.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Pretty much what it boils down to for me.

Killing is wrong, end of story. There shouldn't be any exceptions.

I don't agree. And I don't see it as hypocritical, there's a distinction.

Someone who murders in cold blood took the life of another, thereby taking that person's right to life. It follows that they themselves are now no longer deserving of maintaining their own right to life. They forfeited that right the moment they snuffed out the life of another.

All we're doing as a society is evening the score. I don't see that as murder at all. In my mind, killing is 100% justified in the case of convicted murderers. I could pull the trigger myself, I wouldn't lose one wink of sleep over taking out someone who murdered.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Call it what you will but taking a human life is wrong. The law says so, no? But it's ok if the state does it? Sorry, can't buy that.

So when dope addicted scum break into your place, you're just going to let them do as they please with you and yours? Without law there can be no justice. Treblinka is a monument to the fallacy of your line of thinking. They thought killing was wrong too, even to defend themselves. I used to think like you do, (I'm not a fan of the government) but idealism has it's place.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Pretty much what it boils down to for me.

Killing is wrong, end of story. There shouldn't be any exceptions.

Murder: kill intentionally and with premeditation or
unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being

Murder is always wrong.

Killing is not always wrong.

Justifiable homicide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where is the justice for the victims of murder and their families? Life in prision with "3 hots and a cot", access to almost unlimited legal resources for appeal, etc. is nowhere near justice.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

While I don't disagree with you on your main point I would say your reasoning is the type of reasoning that will never ever result in the death penalty being really abolished.

1) As far as I know there isn't a large contingent of death penalty advocates who are for it simply because they think it's cheaper. Mostly because that is blatantly immoral. They're for it because they think the killers deserve it. A cost argument is completely lost on them.

2) Here you have presented a statistical fallacy. Or more accurately been presented a statistical fallacy that you then bought hook line and sinker. Most of these studies are woeful. They are conducted by biased organizations and done in a poorly devised economical analysis. Basically the studies don't actually study whether the death penalty is a quality deterrent...they study whether the death penalty eliminates murder. Subtle distinction. For example...none of the studies I know of have adequately addressed whether Fla actually has less murder because of the death penalty or not. For all we know the death penalty in Fla does the best job in preventing murder but it simply isn't good enough to actually eliminate it. Maybe without the death penalty the murder rate would sky rocket to crazy levels.

I would guess you and I would agree that on the face of it I can't see how the death penalty actually deters murder. It seems like basic common sense to me that if you are the type that is going to kill someone in a manner "deserving" of the death penalty then the threat of the death penalty is probably moot.

The best argument in my mind is that killing people for anything is just wrong. It is what we're trying to punish. Seems damn hypocritical and damn ironic to punish someone by doing to them what they did to somebody.

A) Actually a lot of people do justify the death penalty because they do not know that executions are more expensive. Just look at some of the posts in this thread. I've found personally that the cost argument is very effective for some people. Many people think that executions are actually a cheaper route and change their minds when they are properly informed. But to each his own.

B) I couldn't agree more about your "best argument." The death penalty just creates a culture of hypocritical violence in which, by putting murderers to death, we are ironically socialized to think that killing is ok. But in my own experience, some people are so full of hate that they just don't get this argument. For these people, someone's gotta die, period.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I don't agree. And I don't see it as hypocritical, there's a distinction.

Someone who murders in cold blood took the life of another, thereby taking that person's right to life. It follows that they themselves are now no longer deserving of maintaining their own right to life. They forfeited that right the moment they snuffed out the life of another.

All we're doing as a society is evening the score. I don't see that as murder at all. In my mind, killing is 100% justified in the case of convicted murderers. I could pull the trigger myself, I wouldn't lose one wink of sleep over taking out someone who murdered.

"An eye for an eye just makes the whole world blind." - Gandhi

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I don't agree. And I don't see it as hypocritical, there's a distinction.

Someone who murders in cold blood took the life of another, thereby taking that person's right to life. It follows that they themselves are now no longer deserving of maintaining their own right to life. They forfeited that right the moment they snuffed out the life of another.

All we're doing as a society is evening the score. I don't see that as murder at all. In my mind, killing is 100% justified in the case of convicted murderers. I could pull the trigger myself, I wouldn't lose one wink of sleep over taking out someone who murdered.

What about when the State kills a convicted murderer who was later proven to be innocent? Is that murder? If so, who should be killed in retaliation for that? How do we settle that score?

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by Lotus

"An eye for an eye just makes the whole world blind." - Gandhi

I'm sure that's what people in India say to themselves when Pakistani gunman shoot up hotels and murder people in cold blood. I wonder if the Indian security forces stopped and said that to each other before they shot those admitted CIA led "terrorist"?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Lotus

"An eye for an eye just makes the whole world blind." - Gandhi

What does that even mean? Seriously, that's so contrived.

I think of it as a right for a right. You take away someone else's right to live, then you lose your own. Fair's fair.

I'm not a fan of forgiving murderers.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

What about when the State kills a convicted murderer who was later proven to be innocent? Is that murder? If so, who should be killed in retaliation for that? How do we settle that score?

A cost of doing business that I'm willing to accept, given today's increasing burden of proof when it comes to finding evidence required to obtain a conviction.

It's for the greater good. The accidental conviction and execution would have been done out of error, and therefore not equivocal to cold blooded murder.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

What about when the State kills a convicted murderer who was later proven to be innocent? Is that murder? If so, who should be killed in retaliation for that? How do we settle that score?

No, because there was no malicious intent.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

So when dope addicted scum break into your place, you're just going to let them do as they please with you and yours? Without law there can be no justice. Treblinka is a monument to the fallacy of your line of thinking. They thought killing was wrong too, even to defend themselves. I used to think like you do, (I'm not a fan of the government) but idealism has it's place.

We're getting away from the basic argument. I'm firmly against the death penalty, I'll just leave it at that.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

What about when the State kills a convicted murderer who was later proven to be innocent? Is that murder? If so, who should be killed in retaliation for that? How do we settle that score?

And I wonder how the family of the victim would deal with that. Two innocent people murdered?

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

We're getting away from the basic argument. I'm firmly against the death penalty, I'll just leave it at that.

Then don't murder or rape anyone in Virginia, and you'll have nothing to worry about. We do believe in the death penalty, especially for cop-killers and child molesting scum.