Posted on 09/30/2004 12:36:06 PM PDT by JeffersonRepublic.com
But isn't that what the government does? The government only executes people who are a threat to society.
But what will you do if that murderer kills again, either while in prison or after he escapes?
the purpose of prison is to protect society.
They should never be released. A life sentence should be a life sentence. I'll never agree with us killing a criminal once he/she is incarcerated and does not pose a further threat. A lot of these criminals were raised in poor environments, give them the rest of their life to undo the damage caused in their youth to find God and repent.
I thought you had said if he was to kill in prison then it would be OK to execute him.
If the criminal kills again while in prison or escapes then that is a failing of the prison system. I would agree with permanent solitary confinement to prevent the criminal from killing again.
That might be an additional consideration in the case of someone who is imprisoned for life, but putting someone in prison for, say, five years doesn't really "protect" anyone in the long run -- because there is an implicit understanding that the person in question will be out on the street again.
Any "protection" that society gains by imprisoning criminals for something less than their entire lives is the result of the punishment that is rendered. Treating people harshly in prison is a crucial element that we are missing -- because that is what makes someone so terrified of prison that they'll never want to come back for a second "tour."
Yes but what will you do if he still kills again?
Heck, we are talking about the same justice system that let OJ walk free, right?
Actually, the outcome of the OJ case is evidence of how biased our justice system is in favor of the defendant. The fact that OJ walked free does not support your argument that DP should be abolished because we could not determine guilt reliably.
BTW, I am also an opponent of the DP. However, I oppose the concept of death as a penalty.
yeah, like that ever happens. Access to excercise equipment, cable tv, etc. etc.
The victims in a murder get no such luxuries. The killer shouldn't either.
What do you think makes a murderer's stay in prison more miserable: The fact that they get to spend their time lounging around, or that they spend their time knowing their day is coming?
I totally agree. The criminals’ life should become unbearable. If the crime committed is warrants the death penalty, then the criminal should be given the proper length rope and encouraged to do the deed himself. But the Government shouldn’t kill prisoners.
I think that killing criminals including terrorist is what they deserved. I battle with this issue in my mind which is why I started this post. I wanted to see Freepers work it over.
Holtz
JeffersonRepublic.com
No.
C'mon, to suggest that one supress the natural, in-borne urge of self-preservation in the face of a clear and present danger just to stay "consistent" on this issue is silly and you know it.
It's equally silly to make the quantum leap from agreeing that it's morally sound to defend oneself when attacked to it's quite okay to kill another human being in a contained, antiseptic, state-sponsored manner when other remedies that fall short of state-sanctioned murder exist.
As I mentioned before, there are crimes that deserve death but I question whether we humans should be making those decisions.
In the case of him killing while imprisoned, he declares that he will continue to do so and he's left us with only one real option.
But isn't that what the government does? The government only executes people who are a threat to society.
Actually no, that a criminal continues to be a threat to society could influence the sentence, but it's not a requirement for the death penalty at this point.
Ok.
But you do understand that murderers are to be put to death provided two people can identify that person, no? That being an instruction from God Himself.
The concept being that the murdered person’s soul waits with God for justice. The murderer is to be sent to God so judgment can be rendered. That’s how I remember it.
"In our modern secular culture, there is no longer any rational reason for the U.S. not to execute criminals--even if an innocent person is occasionally executed in the process."
And miscarriages of justice are rare, certainly more rare than in the past, where the law didn't seem all that interested in waiting 10-20 years to ascertain guilt and put murderers to death.
Not a popular position to take around here but it's mine too.
The problem with our justice system isn't that we fail to execute murderers -- it's that we treat the ones we don't execute too well. The entire concept of a penal colony was based on the premise that some criminals simply had no hope of functioning in an orderly society.
"Heh-heh . . . he said 'penal' . . . Heh-heh."
But are all the "non-death" cases in this mix First-Degree Murder cases? Gotta compare apples and apples.
The death penalty is not a straight-forward democrat-republican or liberal-conservative issue. Bill Clinton supports the death penalty. Al Gore supports the death penalty.
I'm against the death penalty - unless a particular prisoner has committed a particularily serious crime AND cannot be controlled by the applicable prison system. I have no problem with a Ted Bundy (who was a frequent escapee) or a Saddam Hussein (a serious break-out threat) being put to death. OTOH, I wouldn't have had Timothy McVeigh executed (but I would have him put in a cell for life with nothing but a cot, a sink and a toilet).
I believe my view is in line with the view of the Catholic church as well.
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.