Posted on 05/03/2006 8:33:25 AM PDT by Crackingham
So is the problem that we are not killing these guys? Or that they are not serving life behind bars? Like I said, death is only warrented (in my opinion) if another life is at risk.
Look around, the death penalty certainly hasn't stopped a single murder that I know of.
This is such an absurd piece of non-logic, it practically defines it. Its like saying that the death of known authors hasn't stopped a single book from being written.
There is not a single case in the history of mankind of an executed murderer killing anyone thereafter, Friday the 13th movies notwithstanding. There are countless cases of unexecuted murderers subsequently killing again and again and again and again. The death penalty would have stopped all of these countless murders.
Sorry, judge, jury, whatever, I don't find comfort in them being accurate 100% of the time. Death sentence, in my opinion, should only be carried out when someone's life is at risk(again, if they are capable of sending out death orders from behind bars). Than and only than would I find it acceptable.
Even the ones serving life sentences manage to kill fellow prisoners and guards regularly. Not to mention having other people killed outside the prison, as Allen did. "Tookie" Williams came very close to killing fellow inmates more than once. Allowing known stone killers to continue to live puts everyone within their reach at risk.
Right now, there is a woman running for the Democrat gubernatorial primary whose claim to fame was her Tookie advocacy. If she had been Governor, that monster would be on the streets.
I agree that these murderers are let go time and time again. Just as the system is not perfect in releasing these criminals, it is just as imperfect in convicting the wrong people. It's a stand off. All I can hope for is putting these politicians and judges feet to the fire, for this is where the problem lies. I have to defend the lives of the innocent, no matter how few of them there are.
That's just how I'm made.
Where is the motive?
Good find, now I have motive.
What we have here is a trial by the press where the death penalty is found guilty; I imagine most of these professional witnesses also rely on "on the job training."
A quibble: I would say "ethical and honest proceedures". "Proper proceedures" is a moving target, subject to the whims of politicians, ambitious DAs and scoundrel defense lawyers. I am all for careful and honest deliberations, but having fufilled that obligation, I am all for executing murderers and certain other heinious criminals (child rapists, mob bosses, for ex.).
I'll buy that - clearly, "proper" is in the eye of the beholder...
A judge cannot release a killer back into society if they have been executed.
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.