Posted on 07/21/2005 10:59:24 AM PDT by Houmatt
The News article, "The death penalty debate goes on," aptly pointed out the many reasons why New York is better off without the death penalty - from its outrageous cost to the unmet needs of victims' family members to a fallible system riddled with arbitrariness. But the article failed to counter one myth often promulgated by death penalty supporters. The death penalty is not necessary to secure life without parole sentences. States without the death penalty have plenty of inmates serving life without parole. In fact, Massachusetts, Iowa and West Virginia, despite having no death penalty, have higher percentages of inmates serving life without parole than most death penalty states.
Life and death are too important to be used as a bargaining chip. New York did the right thing in rejecting the death penalty. In contrast to a death sentence, life without parole is swift and sure, with no mandatory appeals. Families hurt by the crime can go on with their lives, while the person responsible will spend the rest of his life thinking about the harm he has caused.
David Kaczynski
Executive Director
New Yorkers Against the Death Penalty
The outrageous costs are due to the ad nauseum appeals murderers are given. Here's an idea: One appeal, one year to run its course, then the only price we can worry about is in regard to the cost of electricity. And while no system is ever infallible, you can be sure of one thing: Executed murderers never kill again.
But the article failed to counter one myth often promulgated by death penalty supporters. The death penalty is not necessary to secure life without parole sentences.
I do not know of anyone who is saying otherwise.
In fact, Massachusetts, Iowa and West Virginia, despite having no death penalty, have higher percentages of inmates serving life without parole than most death penalty states.
That's because LWOP is their only alternative, you moron.
Life and death are too important to be used as a bargaining chip.
Another moronic statement. The death penalty is not meant as "a bargaining chip." It is used as a form of punishment for unrepentant, psychopathic killers.
Families hurt by the crime can go on with their lives, while the person responsible will spend the rest of his life thinking about the harm he has caused.
The piece de resistance, perhaps the most outrageously stupid thing the guy could say. The reason should be self-evident.
Well of course they do, that's because they can't kill them. What a maroon.
"they believe that letting a murderer live off the taxpayers for 50-60 years is more cost effective than a shot in the arm or a bullet to the head? please....."
With the way the system currently works they are right.
Sometimes. But not usually. I know many people on Death Row, and most of them are decidedly repentant and not evidently psychopathic. Here in Georgia, the difference between getting the death penalty and getting a life sentence is largely a matter of jurisdiction. Killers from the bigger cities, especially Atlanta, are very unlikely to face capital punishment. Killers from rural areas are far more likely to be considered for the death sentence. There is no apparent difference in the severity of the crimes or the attitude of the criminals.
I have always loved it when the anti-death penalty people talk about how it is not working as a deterrent therefore it should not be used. I then point out that the death penalty is not a deterrent, it is a punishment. Prison is also a punishment even though some try to say it is a deterrent. The concept of the prison was created thousands of years ago and yet we still have crime. Anything the justice system does to a convicted criminal is a punishment not a deterrent. Deterrents to crime come from society before criminals committ crimes. After that society punishes the criminal act. I don't understand why that's such a hard concept for so many on the left.
I noticed this guy didn't address the problems that life w/o parole causes. I am sure that sending petty thieves to live among hardened criminals (murderes, rapists, thugs, etc) for several months to years improves their disposition....to commit more crimes and upgrade the violence when they are released.
My mother always said that who you hang out with (friends) affects your attitude and behavior.
And while he's thinking about it he can commit more murders as happened in Pennsylvania several years ago. A POS named Hoss murdered a policeman over a traffic stop, went to prison where he murdered a guard and another prisoner. He was finally brought to justice when he himself was murdered. So much for the theory that life without parole works as well as the death penalty.
"What we need is life wothout punishment."- Sen. Ted Kennedy
I too believe that life without would be horrible..worse than death. If you go to Townhall.com, there is an article about the death penalty that spells the reasons for it out pretty well. The thrust of the article is that we must put to death those who take innocent life. This is society's way of showing that innocent life is valuable.
I believe that there needs to be a death penalty for certain crimes.
The problem with the death penalty is, however, that it is harder to get a conviction and it costs the state more in legal fees than it does to indefinitely house the turd.
My solution to the problem is that the inmate be given an amount of money to cover his/her costs. The inmate can opt to pay lawyers, get an education, watch cable, file appeals, or eat with this money. Rent is mandatory. When they can no longer pay rent they are drowned. (It's cheaper than the electric chair, shooting, gassing, and hanging.)
Better still, upon their balance dropping to zero, the "games" are played. Roman style.
Lions, Tigers, and Bears (Oh, my!) vs. the criminals. Tickets, TV rights, and concessions can be sold. Reality TV never looked so good.
"anti-DP moron" is redundant?
You might want to be more polite to people who don't share your views. We can all agree to disagree on some issues.
For example, Pope John Paul II was anti-DP. I don't think he was a moron.
Then let these clowns put their butts on the line to guard these scum who have nothing to lose by taking out a guard and everything to gain.
If these scum kill a guard, they are guaranteed a change of scenery, as they will have to be transported somewhere for their new trial.
I was almost a victim of the onion field killers, when they were hauled to L.A. and housed in my cellblock for a retrial on their murder convictions. What kept me from becoming their next victim was a sharp deputy who "closely examined" a typewriter brought to the slimes by their attorney who had convinced a judge that they needed a typewriter. Hidden in the typewriter was a loaded gun.
Needless to say, the attorney plead ignorance and nothing happened to him.
What's so "outrageously" expensive about a lethal injection cocktail?
A man who attacked and tried to kill my mother (before she married my dad), later went home and killed HIS mother and disabled sister. In a jail cell during his trial, he strangled a vangrant man in a cell nect to yhim.
He got the death penalty. California overturned the death penalty and he keeps coming up for parole. Even the overturned death sentence didn't give him life without parole. Do death penalty opponents think men like this should be paroled?
I seem to recall a debate between a liberal and a conservative. The liberal stated that the death penalty is ineffective because it does not stop crime.
The conservative replied that the death penalty does indeed stop crime, because the guy who gets executed can't commit any more crimes!
Did I stammer?
For example, Pope John Paul II was anti-DP. I don't think he was a moron.
Who the hell is talking about the late Pope? I'm not. I'm talking about people like the a$$clown that wrote the letter I am referencing. When your lust for keeping unrepentant psychos alive at the expense of the public defies common sense, you are, no question, a moron.
I don't care if you disagree with that. That is how I feel and that's all that needs to be said.
Depending on who you talk to, yes. (Read: A member of Amnesty International.)
The same thing applies to Manson, et al, who has somehow managed to outlive almost all of Sharon Tate's surviving relatives.
I cannot make up my mind whether that is an irony or an obscenity.
Then perhaps you could explain Richard Ramirez. Or Resendiz. Or this Duncan fellow. Or how about the bastard who killed Jessica Lunsford?
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.