No right to sentence someone to death

[magsnubby]

Read this...it's long...then tell me about "LIFE IN PRISON"

online.ceb.com/calcases/C3/42C3d1222.htm

For some reason the link won't work now but do a google search for "frans market" , go to page 2 and click on "People v. Allen (1986)

 

[Standing Wolf]

How much has it cost over 24 years, keeping this CONFESSED cop-killer? I cannot imagine.

Since you asked, I'll tell you.

Make sure you're not eating.

It costs more to keep someone in prison for a year than it would to send a deserving young person to virtually any college in the nation for the same period. That cold-blooded murder's keep has set back the tax payers the equivalent of at least six full college educations.

It's a matter or priorities.

 

[JerryM]

Our Creator is just, and He wants justice for mankind. Mankind does not do it well, but God still desires justice.

Justice in its basic meaning is an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. That was stated in the Bible/OT. I will post specific verses if required.
That concept does three things.
1. It requires that the judgment be in accordance with the crime.
2. It prohibits punishment that would be excessive, for example, one would not cut off the head of one who stole bread.
3. It requires that the victim be compensated when possible.

God has said that vengeance is His. However, He has given human government the authority and responsibility to act as His agent to dispense justice. Romans chapter 13: 1 – 7 shows that clearly, as does 1Pe_2:13, 14. Romans 13:4 says “…. For if you practice evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword in vain; for it is a servant of God, a revenger for wrath on him who does evil.”
The sword is an instrument of death, so it is clear that the death penalty has not been changed. God had said that whoever sheds mans blood, by man shall his blood be shed. Death for murder. It is still as much in effect as when God first said it.

When Jesus said that one should not practice an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth He was not speaking of government, but the individual who does not have the authority to take vengeance. It is the government who has that authority.

Man is responsible for his actions, and that includes Christians and non-Christians. Both are required to forfeit their lives for murder, or suffer what ever punishments the government establishes for whatever crime has been committed.

Jerry

 

[Cesiumsponge]

I was under the education that "If a man destroy the eye of another man, they shall destroy his eye." was The 282 Codes of Hammurabi, "the eye" being #196. Its goes further by stating "If a son strike his father, they shall cut off his fingers", "If one break a man's bone, they shall break his bone." in other codes.

"Eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" seems to be the cliffnotes version.

So it costs big bugs to keep someone in prison for life. It costs big bugs for the death penalty. It costs big bugs for rehabilitation and it has proven not to work in many cases.

Are there any other ideas on the plate?

 

[P95Carry]

In case anyone is thinking of it - please no more vear into religious territory folks!

 

[beerslurpy]

Id execute people for a lot less and a whole lot quicker too. This guy should have fried before Knight Rider went into reruns. 24 years of prison is a lot of money they could have spent elsewhere.

And I personally dont understand why retards are getting a free pass these days. If youre a murderer and a retard as well, youre of even less value to society than an ordinary murderer. You certainly dont deserve free room and board for the next 70 years.

And lets not get started on juveniles. If youre old enough to spill blood, youre old enough to know that it's wrong and to pay the price for it.

Whatever happened to the firing squad? It's cheap, its effective and its a fun group activity. I feel that the injection chair is too much of a Mr Rogers execution method. Why should we have the slightest care for the suffering of someone who has inflicted so much upon others? Let them go awake and screaming into the afterlife.

 

[Kurush]

But Travaglia said he shot Miller accidentally.

"In the process of pulling the gun on him, the hammer slipped and the gun discharged," Travaglia told Freeman. "The individual next to me (Lesko) says, 'Hit him again,' and as (if by) impulse, I shot him again."

His only mistake is that he didn't live in LA. Robert Blake's story was way worse that that.

 

[Turkey Creek]

Next step in the defense of these sub humans is the "I've found God" defense- I can't believe how many of these supposedly born again Christians find the Almighty in prison- Heck, I didn't even know He was lost- maybe we should close all our churches and hold services in prisons since that's where He seems to hang out the most- :banghead:

 

[Vang]

Id execute people for a lot less and a whole lot quicker too. This guy should have fried before Knight Rider went into reruns. 24 years of prison is a lot of money they could have spent elsewhere.

And I personally dont understand why retards are getting a free pass these days. If youre a murderer and a retard as well, youre of even less value to society than an ordinary murderer. You certainly dont deserve free room and board for the next 70 years.

And lets not get started on juveniles. If youre old enough to spill blood, youre old enough to know that it's wrong and to pay the price for it.

Whatever happened to the firing squad? It's cheap, its effective and its a fun group activity. I feel that the injection chair is too much of a Mr Rogers execution method. Why should we have the slightest care for the suffering of someone who has inflicted so much upon others? Let them go awake and screaming into the afterlife.

We have a Constitution in this country that regulates government power. Government does not have the power to torture us, for instance.

In that spirit, we must think of jailing someone as a very weighty and significiant thing to do. The jailing of a man is a very serious thing to do. You act as if it is not, and that somehow the state is giving him the "gift" of room and board. The state has denied the prisoner the means of making a living for himself, and thus is obligated to make sure that he has the basic things he needs to survive.

On juveniles, the reference to changing global standards on juvenile execution and the interpretation of the 8th amendment in a recent supreme court opinion is, I believe, justified. The 8th amendment is an amendment that even an Orginalist should believe changes in meaning over time. The phrase "cruel and unusual" was not slang for a given set of practices, it references current (whenever current is) thinking on what "cruel and unusual punishment" means. Modern thinking must be applied to this definition. A juvenile may understand his actions, but, under the Constitution, I believe he cannot be executed.

 

[1 old 0311]

Hell I will pull the switch for free

Kevin

 

[Ky Larry]

Ted Bundy was in jail in Colorado when he escaped and went to Florida.One of the crimes he was convicted of was the death of Polly Leach. He kidnapped her, raped her, tortured her, and bashed her head in with a tire iron. When he got done with her, he stuffed her body under a hog shed. She was 13 years old.
I know I would be a better man, a better human being, and a better Christian lf I could find it in my heart to forgive Ted Bundy. However, I'm glad the state of Florida strapped him in Ol' Sparky and fried his brain. He can't hurt anyone else. Some people are just too evil to be allowed to live. Just my $0.02 worth.

 

[Vang]

It's very easy to say that when you are thinking about a disgusting person. You must, however, look at the broader picture of allowing the state to kill its citizens.

 

[Pilgrim]

Can someone explain to me the concept of the "born-again Christian"? I don't get how you can do whatever your heart's desire, break all the rules laid out by Christianity, then get a clean-slate after you've "been there, done that" and gotten all that exploration and curiosity satisfied. Doesn't that undermine the entire purpose of trying to live a proper life under the guidelines of a given religious belief? It seems like a concept that gives free reign until you get bored and want to settle down.

The first "Christian" died on the cross next to Jesus. He was forgiven and saved, but he still suffered death at the hands of the civil authorities.

Pilgrim

 

[Cesiumsponge]

We have a Constitution in this country that regulates government power. Government does not have the power to torture us, for instance.

In that spirit, we must think of jailing someone as a very weighty and significiant thing to do. The jailing of a man is a very serious thing to do. You act as if it is not, and that somehow the state is giving him the "gift" of room and board. The state has denied the prisoner the means of making a living for himself, and thus is obligated to make sure that he has the basic things he needs to survive.

On juveniles, the reference to changing global standards on juvenile execution and the interpretation of the 8th amendment in a recent supreme court opinion is, I believe, justified. The 8th amendment is an amendment that even an Orginalist should believe changes in meaning over time. The phrase "cruel and unusual" was not slang for a given set of practices, it references current (whenever current is) thinking on what "cruel and unusual punishment" means. Modern thinking must be applied to this definition. A juvenile may understand his actions, but, under the Constitution, I believe he cannot be executed.

Correct me if I make the wrong assumption as I'm only human, but I was under the belief that the non-native civilization jailed/executed criminals in North America before the Constitution existed, during the drafting of the Constitution, immediately after the Constitution (which I am not aware if there was public outcry against jailing or hangings), and we are to this date still jailing and putting criminals to death.

 

[jefnvk]

Regardless, I think we should be at least a little wary of allowing the government to kill its citizens.

That is why we have a panel of 12 peers decide who dies and who gets to live.

 

[Ky Larry]

Vang, it is not easy to say that any person should die. You must, however, look at the broader question of protecting society from evil predators. I don't know if the death penalty deters crime. However, it put a permanent end to the threat to society from this particular dirt bag. I respect your opinion and see the logic you used to arrive at your position.

 

[Kim]

Beware of liberals in Christian mode when it comes to their interpretation of law. It is just their belief. They seem to twist it like they do the constitution. I don't know how many times I have heard it said the Catholic Church is aganist the death penalty. This is not true in the absolute sense. Read what the Pope said. He did not say it was aganist Biblical teaching. He was giving a personal opion not doctrine truth. Even then he did not say he believed it to be always wrong. Don't believe the media. The true reason the left is aganist the death penalty has absolutely NOTHING to do with religious beliefs or a lack of statist tendencies but everything to do at chipping away at religion and self defense. If we get to where it is wrong for the people to demand justice for murder of the most agregious type then it is also wrong to kill in war or for any person to have the right to self defense. Think about it in their big picture mind. There used to be the thought in our law that Justice was demanded for the murdered and for society as a whole. It was felt man could not give the JUSTICE on this earth that was needed for murder. Therefore the death penalty was a way to send the person to God for the ultimate Judge to do Justice. Judges used to say after reading the sentence of death " and may God have mercy on your soul" meaning that is to whom we are sending you for judgment. Some think we have "progressed" in our thinking. Sometimes I believe we have been educated to idiot level.

 

[GT]

Kim +1

Also, not only does the state have a right to execute the heinous criminal, it has a DUTY to do so; both from the Christian and the practical point of view.

The death penalty is not supposed to be a deterent, it is supposed to be the final punishment. The end of the line.


G

 

[Kim]

I totally disagree with the USSC on their ruling on executing minors. Just what reason can they give for saying someone 17 years 23 hours 59 minutes and 59 seconds does not get the death penalty and someone one second older does. That is arbitrary. Plus it is again an activist opinion. They have no power under the constitution to demand that ruling on the states or the people. Reminds me of all the stupid no tolerance school board policies except in the opposite direction. These cases should be tried on the individual facts. Not on such a arbitrary idea. Heck the whole 18 year cut off designating minor status is arbitrary for the same reason. Although there are laws to get around this in certain circumstances ie consent to get married,emancipation of a minor female if pregnant etc.(this last one really gets me cause it is automatic in some states therefore even if the parents make 500,000 a year medicaid will pick up the medical tab for the pregnancy)

 

[cracked butt]

Rights are inherent to our existence. No person can be stripped of his rights. If he can, his rights exist only on the whim of government. His rights are no longer rights, but priviledges that government grants out of "kindness," like a parent would a child.

The other side of the coin is a funny 6 syllable word called 'responsibilities.' Responsibilites go hand in hand with rights. If one is irresponsible and doesn't follow the laws or common sense for that matter, his rights can be taken away. If a person A violates person B's rights, such as that person B's right to live, Person A just forfeited his rights. Not too hard to figure out or understand.

 

[ozarkhillbilly]

Vang

If the government does not have the right or should not have the right to execute its citizens after a trial by 12 peers because its murder then how does it have the right to put some one in prison is that not kidnaping and slavery. Would not anyform of taxes be theft and you can go on and on.

As soon as a person sets foot off their personal property they must obey the rules of socitey and in the USA those rules say the DP is legal. Also the legal system and prison is not about rehablitation its about punishment.

 

[campergeek]

Having sat on a capital murder jury (as foreman), I found that handing down a death sentence, even as one of a group of 12, was much harder than I ever imagined. Nothing like the flip comments I used to make about what should happen to criminals, and I got REALLY angry after the trial by the flip comments of others (such as "did you fry him?").

However, during this experience I came to the solid conclusion that the sentence is just, and despite the semantics used in our legal system a jury does not sentence a criminal to anything. The criminal sentences himself/herself at the moment that the crime is commited. The judge and jury are just part of the process of our legal system which hands down the consequences of that sentence.

 

[Vang]

If the government does not have the right or should not have the right to execute its citizens after a trial by 12 peers because its murder then how does it have the right to put some one in prison is that not kidnaping and slavery. Would not anyform of taxes be theft and you can go on and on.

As soon as a person sets foot off their personal property they must obey the rules of socitey and in the USA those rules say the DP is legal. Also the legal system and prison is not about rehablitation its about punishment.

I never said the government shouldn't be able to kill people in limited circumstances. I would say terrorism and treason where there is insurmountable evidence would be those circumstances, but we can debate that one.

I would indeed say most taxes are theft, but that's a discussion for a differerent thread.

Some people would disagree with you about the purpose of prison. I would say it's about both, with an intent to prevent further crime (for instance, putting sex criminals likely to repeat their crimes in jail for life). Jail is not about retribution, it's about preventing future harm to society.

It's fallacious to say that the rules are justified because they are the rules.

Kim, a line has to be drawn somewhere. It's stupid, but, in some circumstances, the law has to make black and white an issue that is grey

cracked butt, can you not see that the government saying "if you do these things, you have no rights" invalidates the entire concept of rights? A right does not come at the expense of a responsibility, otherwise that right is a priviledge. An allowance at the expense of a chore, so to speak.

 

[Taurus 66]

That is why we have a panel of 12 peers decide who dies and who gets to live.

I don't know if the death penalty deters crime. However, it put a permanent end to the threat to society from this particular dirt bag.

I do not know the numbers of those executed, who were innocent of the charge(s) against them, yet were found guilty by a jury of twelve, but I'm sure the number is higher than any of us could guess.

A person cannot suffer a sentence if not left here to suffer.

In cell blocks where prisoners have been convicted of murder, remove the televisions, radios, computers, and CD players. They're not in the house to watch their favorite shows, listen to their favorite tunes, play video games, chat online, and generally geek out! They're supposed to be serving a harsh sentence! Second, remove all gym equipment. Let them rely on good old fashion push ups and sit ups if they want to maintain physical strength! Third, remove the education system. It's a waste of tax payer money (like all the other luxuries) and besides, a job-seeking convicted murderer who has been paroled after 20-25 minimum (example) doesn't deserve a high tech, high paying job! There are plenty of dish washing/janitorial positions available for such a scumbag!

 

[Vang]

Taurus 66, have you ever seen the inside of a prison? A maximum security prison? I have done both, and I assure you, there is no "geeking out." (I wasn't a prisoner, thank you.)

I would like my prisons to be effective in preventing future crime. If that means a few "luxuries (job training)," so be it.