• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

this is when i support the death penalty

HarryKeogh

Unregistered
H
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Messages
11,319
Troy Kell murdered a man when he was a teenager at his girlfriend's urging. While serving time in prison he stabbed a black man several dozen times while shouting "white power". This was completely caught on tape and was broadcast in it's entirety on HBO as part of a documentary on the case. truly disturbing video.

He murdered someone before and received life in prison
His second murder was a "hate crime" (though what murder isn't)that was caught on tape.
It's now time for him to go.

He'll be shot in the heart and will die in a few seconds. A much better way to go than to be pinned down and stabbed 50 times in the face, chest and back.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/22/firing.squad.executions.ap/index.html

there is no chance that we are executing the wrong man. he's proven that he cannot be rehabilitated.
 
If the standard for applying the death penalty was something like, "the proof has to be beyond a doubt" then even I would approve the death penalty.

However, the standard is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" which is much lower.

Consider the recent cases in Illinois where over 50% of the death penalty convictions were overturned. Think about that, a 50% error rate! That means that they are not getting it right even half of the time.

I doubt that the public would like it if over half of the speeding tickets and expired parking meter citations were in error, so I find it impossible to support the death penalty as it currently practiced.
 
Earthborn said:
How? What is the evidence? Wouldn't that be proving a negative?
Click to expand...

his second brutal murder proved it to me.

but youre right. poor choice of words. let me say in my opinion there's a 99.999999934% chance he cannot be rehabilitated.
 
Crossbow said:
If the standard for applying the death penalty was something like, "the proof has to be beyond a doubt" then even I would approve the death penalty.

However, the standard is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" which is much lower.

Consider the recent cases in Illinois where over 50% of the death penalty convictions were overturned. Think about that, a 50% error rate! That means that they are not getting it right even half of the time.

I doubt that the public would like it if over half of the speeding tickets and expired parking meter citations were in error, so I find it impossible to support the death penalty as it currently practiced.
Click to expand...

50% of the cases being overturned doesnt mean they were found not guilty. it means that something was unfair in the trial that causes concern. So they were reviewed.

and rightly so.

but in a case this obvious with visual proof i have no problem with it. i do have serious problems with it in other situations.
 
Firing Squad? Montana is the only other state to theoretically allow execution by firing squad, right?

These cases are good for testing the limits of government authority over the individual.

He's no doubt a monster, but I simply believe the state has no right to execute its citizens when realistic measures can be taken to prevent violence against others.
 
HarryKeogh said:


50% of the cases being overturned doesnt mean they were found not guilty. it means that something was unfair in the trial that causes concern. So they were reviewed.

and rightly so.

but in a case this obvious with visual proof i have no problem with it. i do have serious problems with it in other situations.
Click to expand...

Correction, in many of the cases it does mean they were not guilty!

There have been many people who have been exonerated by DNA evidence in death penalty cases. They were exonerated because the DNA evidence showed there was no way that they could have been the killer.
 
Earthborn said:
How? What is the evidence? Wouldn't that be proving a negative?
Click to expand...

Who gives a wank? hes killed someone and got life. Then killed again. Kill the cnut, prefereably with some piano wire and a few 12v batteries.
 
Well, I could argue about the role of justice and punishment, the epistemic nature of truth and certainty, but I won't. Instead, a very simple point:

The power to kill legitimately is an awesome power. Power corrupts. This is one power I do not, under any condition, want the government to possess.
 
Im ok with the death penalty so long as you have a very high standard of proof. The bias in death penalty cases bothers me, tehre needs to be a way around that. (For example how can that lady in Carolina who drowned her kids in the car not get death penalty???)



As for rehabilitation? Why bother. Even if you rehab him hes still in for life, whats the point. Prison is about punishment for crime not rehabilitation. Thats why we still prosecute people years after a crime. Even if they rehabilitated within that time.
 
There's a clear distinction in my mind between the idea that this guy deserved to die, and the idea that my government should kill him. Undoubtedly, there are a number of folks who could be tortured to death, and most people would feel better about it, but that isn't the role of the government of a civilized people, in my opinion.
 
I'm totally for the death penalty in those cases. Child molesters, repeated sex offenders and serial killers are expensive and they don't bring anything positive to society.

But... death by firing squad? Isn't that slightly barbaric? I know it's the death they have chosen, but couldn't we just say "no" and use the clean and silent lethal injection?
 
Frostbite said:
I'm totally for the death penalty in those cases. Child molesters, repeated sex offenders and serial killers are expensive and they don't bring anything positive to society.
Click to expand...
Surely one death row inmate is as expensive as the next?

Frostbite said:
But... death by firing squad? Isn't that slightly barbaric? I know it's the death they have chosen, but couldn't we just say "no" and use the clean and silent lethal injection?
Click to expand...
Man, I wouldn't go for the firing squad if I had to choose. What if all the shooters got together beforehand and said "OK, everybody aim for his nuts".
 
How? What is the evidence? Wouldn't that be like proving a negative?

First of all, I would say that if anybody is obviously not going to be rehabilitated, it is a double murderer who committed one of the murders while in jail for the other murder. It is hard to imagine anybody who is less likely to be rehabilitated, when you think about it.

Second, and more important, I fail to see why his possible rehabilitation is relevant. He deserves to be executed as a fitting punishment for what he DID--cold-blooded murder by stabbing someone 55 times (let alone the previous murder he committed; if he had been executed for that, his second victim would have been alive today)--not for a future murder he might or might no commit.

To give an example, Hermann Goering certainly could have been rehabilitated. He was an energetic, intelligent man, who was not personally violent. He was not likely to kill people in the streets, and could have been quite a help for the allied reconstructing Germany.

So? Did his excellent rehabilitation chances mean he should not have been sentenced to death? Of course not. He deserved it for what he DID, not the likelihood (or lack thereof) of him killing someone ELSE after his trial.

To say that someone doesn't deserve to be executed for a vicious murder because they MIGHT be rehabilitated--or even, for that matter, because they CERTAINLY would be--is to tell the relatives of the victims, "SCREW your brother/father/mother/etc.; their death doesn't deserve a serious punishment, becasue the murderer won't do it again."
 
Undoubtedly, there are a number of folks who could be tortured to death, and most people would feel better about it, but that isn't the role of the government of a civilized people, in my opinion
Click to expand...

So ..... What? Vigilaties (sp)? I'd rather the government was doing it in accordance with a set of rules, than every Tom, Dick and Martha with a snubnosed .38.
 
The one area that I do support the death penalty for pretty strongly is for persons already serving life sentences who kill again.

Essentially, if the only penalty they can receive is another life sentence -- i.e., no penalty at all -- there is no real disincentive for them. If they see a chance to escape and all they have to do is kill a guard -- why not? All that can happen is they go right back into the cell. Handling a prisoner for life under those circumstances, no matter how good the precautions, places additional risk on everyone that comes anywhere near him.

NA
 
Cain said:
He's no doubt a monster, but I simply believe the state has no right to execute its citizens when realistic measures can be taken to prevent violence against others.
Click to expand...

What realistic measures do you have in mind? Have you watched any of the documentaries about the extremes that are necessary to prevent these men from committing more violence and yet some of them still succeed. These are guys that can make weapons from tooth brushes, eating utensils, and just about anything else. I doubt there is any realistic way to prevent murders in these maximum security prisons short of complete isolation of each prisoner.

Would you be willing to consider a solution like that in lieu of just killing the guy? For me, complete isolation in a small single room seems like a significantly worse punishment than death.
 
To give an example, Hermann Goering certainly could have been rehabilitated. He was an energetic, intelligent man, who was not personally violent. He was not likely to kill people in the streets, and could have been quite a help for the allied reconstructing Germany.
Click to expand...
I agree that he wouldn't have been a dangerous man to meet on the street, but do you really think he would have been useful? Albert Speer emphasizes in Inside the Third Reich how useless he was due to his drug addiction and lethargy. Also, he was corrupt. He looted museums to fill his private art collections and accepted bribes. If Speer's account is correct, he would have been a poor choice for a public offiicial and really wasn't the sort of person suited for any position of power, morally speaking.
 
I'm all for the death penalty for people who chop up little girls and throw them in the river.

(Re: Holly Jones, 10, disappeared one evening a couple of weeks ago, and her dismembered body was found in the river less than 24 hours afterwards.)

I'd even pull the trigger on 'em. If that makes me a barbarian, so be it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom