Killer says NC death row not so bad...

[Tommy Chong]

Everyone who is pro death penalty. I cannot fathom how people could possibly support state sanctioned killing of their fellow citizens.

This.

Well the issue is just not as defined as "Pro" and "Con" death penalty for starters. If you have a gun and someone is literally going to kill your child with a knife and right in front of you, and then come for you, I'm pretty damn sure you'd be pro death penalty at that moment. If not, you're suicidal.

Further, if you knew a madman was out there free, vowing to rape & kill your daughter, you'd wish him dead as well. At that point, if you had a button that could stop his heart, I'm pretty sure any one of us would push it.

Of course if someone was about to harm you or your family you would do whatever you could to protect them or yourself. How does having a law that someone's life must end after they have harmed you or your family help anyone at all? Defending yourself is nothing like having it written in law that someone's life must end.

Anyone who does not support the death penalty for PREVENTATIVE measures is insane. That's literally the same thing as being suicidal.

Oh shit. Are we in Minority Report now?

From a libertarian standpoint, the Death penalty is easily justified. You might think it sounds clever to say that life is the most basic right of all, but that's a two-edged sword when that one life is in the habit of taking other lives. Like I said before, no form of government, even if we're living in an Anarcho-capitalistic society, can be without a death penalty, and it needs to be carried out swiftly or the murderers will be too much of a drain of somebody's resources.

As for non-preventative capital punishment? I'm against it. A family's revenge on a 1-time murderer is deplorable. That's sheer primal emotion acting out; nothing that helps society or rights any wrongs.

It's funny how someone who hasn't been accused of doing something "worthy" of the death penalty supports it. Why would anyone want to put themselves in the position of allowing their government to decide if they are allowed to live? What is wrong with allowing nature to work itself out and have people be able to defend themselves whenever needed? I guarantee that if all adults were to open-carry, serial killers wouldn't make it too long anyway.

 

[mattseh]

Of course if someone was about to harm you or your family you would do whatever you could to protect them or yourself. How does having a law that someone's life must end after they have harmed you or your family help anyone at all? Defending yourself is nothing like having it written in law that someone's life must end.

THIS. They are completely different things.

 

[lukep]

Once again, I said PREVENTATIVE. You two are both arguing that basically you can't know when someone is going to murder again unless they are caught in the act.

That's ludicrous. As I stated before, I'm against non-preventative capital punishment. A family's revenge on a 1-time murderer is deplorable. However, if you do spot a person who is very likely to murder again, he should not be free to do so.

Serial killers all fit this profile. You can't say that it is only known in the universe where Minority Report took place, that would be laughable... In fact, I just did laugh. Twice.

There is a fine line somewhere between "Sure to kill again" and "Possibly could kill again" that I'm not qualified to define here today. But obviously the former should be destroyed and the latter only rehabilitated somehow.

We all agree, however, that murderers from neither category should be killed strictly as Punishment. Honestly I don't know if any level of punishment works as an effective deterrent for anyone guilty of any crime at all. There are waaaaaaay too many cases out there of people DECIDING to do the time in exchange for the crime. Punishments are just plain stupid.

They're a relic of a period of time we are almost done with; one where we weren't smart enough to incentivize being good and prevent repeated crime with proper education and rehabilitation.

Our grandchildren are going to think about prisons and speeding tickets as we do about blood letting and snake oil. Instead of being punished for a crime, they'll be rehabilitated, and it'll probably only take them a few minutes for the entire process to happen.

But even in that day a serial killer could pop up and in those cases it is unlikely that rehab will work. What's left to do then? No prisons around anymore... Best for all involved to kill him.

 

[SUP3RNOVA]

The death penalty is just a blatant and legal Dexter Morgan.

Who doesn't love Dexter?

 

[Tommy Chong]

You two are both arguing that basically you can't know when someone is going to murder again unless they are caught in the act.

No, I'm arguing that the government shouldn't be given the power to Kill its own citizens.


Have you seen The Lincoln Lawyer? I know it's only a movie, but imagine yourself in a similar situation of being accused of doing something you didn't do and were about to be getting the death penalty for. By supporting the death penalty you are willingly giving the government the legal authority to end your life for something you did not do. No human-run legal system can be absolutely flawless. I understand some people's fear that a bad person could possibly exist in society and that they would feel safer if the government could protect them from all possible dangers. But this obviously isn't realistic since every single person in society, including yourself, is a potential threat.

Giving away your most basic right, the right to live, in order to feel slightly more secure, is clearly the wrong way to go about this issue. The best solution is to simply protect yourself from possible dangers and not expect the government to do it for you.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Ben Franklin

 

[Yuckystuff]

No, I'm arguing that the government shouldn't be given the power to Kill its own citizens.


Have you seen The Lincoln Lawyer? I know it's only a movie, but imagine yourself in a similar situation of being accused of doing something you didn't do and were about to be getting the death penalty for. By supporting the death penalty you are willingly giving the government the legal authority to end your life for something you did not do. No human-run legal system can be absolutely flawless. I understand some people's fear that a bad person could possibly exist in society and that they would feel safer if the government could protect them from all possible dangers. But this obviously isn't realistic since every single person in society, including yourself, is a potential threat.

Giving away your most basic right, the right to live, in order to feel slightly more secure, is clearly the wrong way to go about this issue. The best solution is to simply protect yourself from possible dangers and not expect the government to do it for you.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Ben Franklin

Serious question - did/do you support Obama? There is a reason I'm asking.

 

[tspesh]

He's sitting in there thinking about what he did, and knowing he will have to do that for the next 10-20 years waiting to die is a lot worse for him than being dead right now.

He's telling you that it's not.

 

[eliquid]

i support the death penalty.

for those that say the gov. shouldn't be allowed to kill its own citizens, or that the gov shouldnt have legal auth to kill citizens, you got it all twisted bro.

if WE give he gov authority to protect its citizens and land ( b/c any land it "owns" was taken from other people ) by waging war and killing "other" citizens in other lands, then it is no different to me if we pluck a few of our own and fry them for crimes like this.

this fucking dude admitted to killing them. he should fry. end of story. I would feel different if this was a Lincoln lawyer type where the guy didnt admit to it though.

there are people hanging out on the street doing nothing getting shot every day, and this mother fucker admitted to killing 3 people and is watching color TV and nappin in the a/c? Fuck that, i'd pay another inmate to snap his neck right now if I could.

 

[lukep]

No, I'm arguing that the government shouldn't be given the power to Kill its own citizens.

As a libertarian I agree with your sentiment totally, but NOT while the current government is still intact. The system we have (and all democracy that I know of) REQUIRES that the state protects us to some extent because the state makes it very difficult for us to protect ourselves properly.

If you want to live somewhere with no death penalty, I'm sure there is an island small enough somewhere that has no murder rate you can go find.

Have you seen The Lincoln Lawyer? I know it's only a movie, but imagine yourself in a similar situation of being accused of doing something you didn't do and were about to be getting the death penalty for.

Yes, so go read my post again and you'll see in such situations I had a plan for this.

I understand some people's fear that a bad person could possibly exist in society and that they would feel safer if the government could protect them from all possible dangers. But this obviously isn't realistic since every single person in society, including yourself, is a potential threat.

What's really unrealistic, given the number of murderers they put away each year, is thinking that society would be relatively safe at all with them all out on the street free to do as they like.

You can't get rid of capital punishment without making sure everyone has guns and is willing to use them... Otherwise the vast numbers of murderers will have a field day slaying liberals like it was a god damn sport.

(Not that I disagree with their taste, but well, it's just not a nice world.)

Giving away your most basic right, the right to live, in order to feel slightly more secure, is clearly the wrong way to go about this issue.

LOL! Slightly, eh? Good one.

Go do some research, and then for each killer allowed to stay out on the street multiply their deaths by 1000 because they'll only get more brazen about it and kill more and more, getting more and more skilled at doing so.

-Then their brazeness will be attractive to others and the mindset will spread. Only when a citizen SUCESSFULLY pulls out their weapon in time and takes bold action does that one murderer of the moment get stopped.

Doesn't sound like too nice of a country to me.

 

[Tommy Chong]

this fucking dude admitted to killing them. he should fry. end of story. I would feel different if this was a Lincoln lawyer type where the guy didnt admit to it though.

Situations like these, where the accused admits to killing or whatever the charge may be, should be dealt with no differently than any other case involving a mentally handicapped person. As long as there were no incentives offered for falsely claiming to be guilty (like in the Lincoln Lawyer case), then someone who murders others, or claims to, is obviously insane/mentally handicapped. Maybe others disagree, but I believe mentally handicapped people also have the right to live.

There is a fine line somewhere between "Sure to kill again" and "Possibly could kill again" that I'm not qualified to define here today. But obviously the former should be destroyed and the latter only rehabilitated somehow.

Do people still do the same things and act the same way they did at five years of age as they do when they are 30? Obviously not. People change based on age and level of maturity. Decades spent in mental institutions or prisons/rehab facilities are sure to change people in some way. No human on Earth knows the future. So how it acceptable to determine the fate of someone’s life using predictions based on past events?

I’m not certain on what the claimed statistical likelihood of being killed by a serial killer is, but I would bet that it is much less than the likelihood of being killed in other common ways such as automobile accidents or even an airplane crashing into you. So would it be logical to eliminate driving and/or airplanes because they are a potential danger? I think most would agree that it wouldn’t, and that life in general has inevitable risks associated with it.

Most of the time risks are coped with by use of insurance. If society feels an individual is a higher risk than the rest, they should have to pay the cost of the insurance (cost to keep people alive in mental institutions) associated with that level of higher security. If that cost is determined to be too much, society should simply live with the risks just as they do with all other risks in life—not choose to give away their own freedom of life by allowing the government to end it.

Serious question - did/do you support Obama? There is a reason I'm asking.

No, I support Ron Paul. He is also against the death penalty btw.

Ron Paul quotes:

There was a time I simply stated that I supported the death penalty. Now my views are not so clearly defined. I do not support the federal death penalty, but constitutionally I cannot, as a federal official, interfere with the individual states that impose it. After years spent in Washington, I have become more aware than ever of the government's ineptness and the likelihood of its making mistakes. I no longer trust the U.S. government to invoke and carry out a death sentence under any condition. Too many convictions, not necessarily federal, have been found to be in error, but only after years of incarcerating innocent people who later were released on DNA evidence. Rich people when guilty are rarely found guilty and sentenced to death. For me it's much easier just to eliminate the ultimate penalty and incarcerate the guilty for life--in case later evidence proves a mistaken conviction.

I do not support the federal death penalty. For me it's much easier just to eliminate the ultimate penalty and incarcerate the guilty for life--in case later evidence proves a mistaken conviction. The cost of incarceration is likely less than it is for death penalty appeals drawn out not for years but for decades. This issue is not only about mistakes that governments make. It is about the power they wield. If the government can legally kill, it can do just about anything else short of that. I no longer believe this government should be trusted with this power. The death penalty does have an effect on the society that endorses it. The more civilized the society is, the more likely it has moved away from a casual or careless administration of the death penalty. The more authoritarian a government becomes, the greater is the number of executions.

Ron Paul on Crime

Go do some research, and then for each killer allowed to stay out on the street multiply their deaths by 1000 because they'll only get more brazen about it and kill more and more, getting more and more skilled at doing so.

-Then their brazeness will be attractive to others and the mindset will spread. Only when a citizen SUCESSFULLY pulls out their weapon in time and takes bold action does that one murderer of the moment get stopped.

If this is the case, then it could be argued that the death penalty is an ineffective solution as well, since murderers are only stopped once caught and after they have harmed others.

there are people hanging out on the street doing nothing getting shot every day, and this mother fucker admitted to killing 3 people and is watching color TV and nappin in the a/c? Fuck that, i'd pay another inmate to snap his neck right now if I could.

We all agree murder is wrong. How is killing mentally handicapped people, when done by the government, any less wrong?

 

[potentialeight]

I think that the states should have the right to impose a death penalty legally, but I think that the way it's done, at least at the moment, is so horribly inefficient that it should be replaced by life in prison with no parole. My main reason for having this opinion is the difference in cost to the taxpayers.

I decided to look this up a couple of things because I was curious after seeing this thread: The average number of people on death row in the United States over the past ten years has been about 3300.

 

[lukep]

Maybe others disagree, but I believe mentally handicapped people also have the right to live.

Of course mentally handicapped people have the friggin right to live. Don't be absurd.

Let's try going about it this way... Which of these people SHOULD be killed by the state IN THIS CURRENT SOCIETY WE LIVE IN: (Not your Utopian vision.)

1. The repeatedly Drunken driver who kills his Second family but won't stop drinking.

2. The Serial killer who obviously enjoys killing... Even collecting fingers or something morbid.

3. The Contract Killer who has no remorse and will kill anyone you want for $10k. Even killed a preist once.

4. The religious sect leader who talked 44 poor souls into drinking his poisoned kool-aid while he made off with their worldly possessions.

5. A guy who tragically loses his job, family, wealth, and even the damn dog one day and suddenly snaps, leaving a trail of bodies in his wake across 6 states, including 22 cops & a fed.

6. The homeless druggie who mugs people to support his heroine habit, occasionally killing the mugging victims.

7. The Wall Street CEO who sees no other way to keep his life of luxury than to put out a hit on occasional competitors. 3 cases found so far...

8. The Vegas mob boss who everyone knows is responsible for thousands of deaths, but you can't pin shit on him besides a little bit of tax evasion.

9. The Slave owner that beats his slaves to death when they disobey him repeatedly. Then he buys more and beats them quicker. (Over 10,000 modern cases of slave ownership predicted in the USA at any given time. Damn Muslims...)

10. The sexual predator that has 23 bodies buried in the cellar. (The most common type of multi-murder, in fact.)

These 10 are just off the top of my head. But surely you can see that a few of these cases are hopeless to salvage, if not all... Let's hear which ones you'd do what with.

Do people still do the same things and act the same way they did at five years of age as they do when they are 30? Obviously not. People change based on age and level of maturity. Decades spent in mental institutions or prisons/rehab facilities are sure to change people in some way. No human on Earth knows the future. So how it acceptable to determine the fate of someone’s life using predictions based on past events?

So are you saying you know of a mental institution or prison/rehab facility that is 100% proven to stop a killer from killing ever again?

Poppycock.

The root problem here is that today, in the real world we live in, these things DON'T FUCKING WORK!

We have to kill the most violent ones or it literally could be you they kill next.

If you're on a small desert island with a Tiger, and it comes down to you or him, wouldn't you want the tiger dead? Survival of the fittest brah, same damn thing.

When you get down to it, capital punishment isn't about punishment, it's about protecting the herd... Survival of the flock. 'One Tiger against you' has the same problem as 'one tiger against a colony of humans'... Except that it can destroy far more lives.

Please tell me that you'd still kill the tiger if 10 different families of humans were at stake on that island!

I’m not certain on what the claimed statistical likelihood of being killed by a serial killer is,

Likely 1/1 millionth of the likelihood of being killed by a serial killer in a society where they weren't removed from the population.

Most of the time risks are coped with by use of insurance. If society feels an individual is a higher risk than the rest, they should have to pay the cost of the insurance (cost to keep people alive in mental institutions) associated with that level of higher security.

Oy vey! I think there's a word for that...

It's called SOCIALISM.

Fuck if I want to chip in my hard-earned money to pay for some deviant's issues... That's absolutely no different whatsoever than me paying taxes that go to support welfare queens' behavior today.

Great plan you have there, Karl...

If that cost is determined to be too much, society should simply live with the risks just as they do with all other risks in life—not choose to give away their own freedom of life by allowing the government to end it.

Easy to say when there aren't umpteen thousand people out there roaming the country freely who wouldn't mind killing you and raping your daughter just for the sport of it. Or raping you and killing your daughter. Hey, don't judge them!

No, I support Ron Paul.

Socialists for Paul! I love it! Lolololol....

I agree with most of Pauls' point; the Federal gov should stay the FUCK out of the matter. But I disagree with Paul on allowing taxpayers to foot the bill and pay for the life prison sentence of murderers. I sometimes wonder if he really believes this point or just has to say so at risk of losing the popular vote on this issue.

If this is the case, then it could be argued that the death penalty is an ineffective solution as well, since murderers are only stopped once caught and after they have harmed others.

WTF? So you believe that a few deaths equals thousands of deaths?

We all agree murder is wrong. How is killing mentally handicapped people, when done by the government, any less wrong?

You act like that's the only kind of murderer. Some were given financial incentive. Some were addicted to a drug and would kill to get more. Some were cold-hearted bastards that saw it as an acceptable lifestyle choice to get what they wanted. Even others just got off sexually on it.

That sad shit happens dude; don't let these people roam free or fill up the prisons at your tax burdon simply because of the small percentage that need some rehab to have a shot at being normal. (Especially since the rebab just doesn't fucking work!)