Posted on 10/26/2007 11:47:50 AM PDT by Huntress
Jurors unanimously agreed today that Lisa Montgomery be put to death for killing Bobbie Jo Stinnett and stealing her unborn daughter nearly three years ago.
The federal jury deliberated about five hours. If jurors had not reached a unanimous decision in favor of the death penalty, Montgomery would have received life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Before the decision was announced, the judge ordered spectators to control their emotions or leave the courtroom.
(Excerpt) Read more at kansascity.com ...
People opposed to the death penalty spend too much time thinking about the perpertrator than they do the victim. Can you imagine the horror of being attacked? Can you hear the screams of pain? Can you imagine Bobby Jo pleading for her life and the life of her baby? Did Bobby Jo see her own blood splattered on Lisa Montgomery? Can you imagine the agony Bobby Jo must have experienced when she knew she was dying? Those are things that need to be taken into consideration too.
Oh. My. God.
I say prod her of a bridge with pool of lava if you don’t know what I refer to. Look up Super Mario Brother.
They're numbers you're misrepresenting as "statistics" relevant to the point you're trying to make. But they're not valid statistics -- they don't apply in the way you try to make them apply.
In fact, the manner in which you employ those numbers makes them the sort of "statistics" that fall just past "damned lies."
Nice strawman, but it leaves out the possibility that people like me oppose it for different reasons altogether. I'm horrified by what happens to the victims, and I'm not much bothered by the death of the criminal.
What I worry about, is what the death penalty does to the rest of us.
The last place I would like to find myself is on a jury to make this decision, but the penalty given for committing murder was death. This gal needs to face her victim...post haste!!!
That was from Exodus, as the Lord was engraving the Ten Commandments. Is it too vague for you? Liberals love to say it is "Thou shalt not kill", and say "SEE...ALL killing is wrong, so capital punishment is wrong!" However it does not say that. The Aramaic word used was "murder" not "kill". there is a big difference, apparently lost on you.
Exactly. I am amazed with all the "consciences" on this forum who are unable to make that distinction. When did FR get all these bleeding hearts?
The Ten Commandments were handed down in Hebrew not Greek. The New Testament was originally written in Greek. In Romans 13 Paul wrote that the government was given the power of the sword to punish wrong doers. See Genesis 9:6 also.
The Ten Commandments were handed down in Hebrew not Greek. The New Testament was originally written in Greek. In Romans 13 Paul wrote that the government was given the power of the sword to punish wrong doers. See Genesis 9:6 also.
In addition to what I said...what they said.
Are you sure you’re posting to the right person?
My post #28 contains nothing but raw stats.
I haven’t made any attempt to draw conclusions or propose actions.
Although I have lots of ideas.
Here is your post #28, in its entirety.
Almost 20,000 people were murdered and 1.3 million people violently assaulted in the US in 2006. 80% of these crimes were committed by repeat offenders, criminals who had been previously convicted of violent crimes. There were only 53 criminals executed in that same time. Every time a violent criminal is put to death, it saves the lives of 18 people on average. Between 1967 and 1977 there were no violent criminals put to death and the homicide rate doubled. Something to consider.
You'll note that you do, in fact, draw conclusions -- specifically, you state that executing a "violent criminal" saves the lives of 18 people.
You clearly imply that the increase in murder rate between 1967-1977 results from the lack of executions during that time -- "something to consider".
At any rate, there's a huge difference between "violent criminals" and "people who commit murder." Your "raw statistics" have nothing to do with the murder rate.
That's actually a statistic.
You clearly imply that the increase in murder rate between 1967-1977 results from the lack of executions during that time -- "something to consider".
I didn't imply anything. That is a statistic. There were no executions and the homicide rate doubled during that time period.
At any rate, there's a huge difference between "violent criminals" and "people who commit murder." Your "raw statistics" have nothing to do with the murder rate.
All murderers are violent criminals. And I do mention murders.
So is "three dogs live within 75 feet of me."
The question is whether it's a meaningful statistic, and the answer is no.
All murderers are violent criminals. And I do mention murders
Yes, but not all violent criminals are murderers -- in fact, the vast majority of violent criminals are not murderers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.