You aint as pretty as the night stalker.

I have no idea if that is or isn't true. But making life or death policy decisions without using any kind of research or data seems like a terrible idea to me.

Actually, I think there is something wrong with giving the state the authority to kill people, that's part of my issue with it.

It's not about me. It's about your willingness to help a man in desperate need.

I dig where you are coming from Janszy, truly I get that side of the argument. But rather I don't think it's giving the state the authority to murder people in cold blood, there is a difference. It's about giving them the authority to say your crimes were so awful, so foul, you are deemed a danger to society and as a punishment for the things you did, in a sane state no less you are sentenced to death. What you did was just too awful to condemn you to a life in prison. Also something that is I don't think anyone really ever mentions is that prisons breed an atmosphere, for domination and torture. On the part of the inmates and on the part of jailers. So you kinda have a ****ty place to be at. A death sentence is almost a humane thing. Because on the prison totem pole say for instances, child killers are really really low, and some of the things I have heard from people I know that have done long stints of time in the creepy man prisons is borderline just as gruesome as what the offender did to the kid in the first place. I don't look a death as an eye for an eye, and to say that is friggin ignorant, it makes people with my stance look like callus uncaring people. No I am not about an eye for an eye, I am about someone paying for what they have done, and sometimes the things people have done to others can't even begin to be repaid even with the ending of the offenders life. I am pro victim and their families, it's not about the offender, and often times we make **** about them when in all actuality it's about the victim of the violent crime, and if you read, and watch tv you find a lot of people that had had horrible things happen to them say the same thing, put he/she to death. Because that is closure, true closure knowing that they aren't allowed any of the luxuries that life has to offer, be it an extra bag of commissary chips or a big house in the suburbs you feel me?

I agree with you, also that no we shouldn't put people death without looking at that facts, that is a heavy heavy job for anyone in the justice systems soul. You will always have **** ups situations that shouldn't happen, and the wrong person is put away, or gased. But to me that is simply a case of casual collateral damage. As nasty and terrible as it is, when high profile things like that happen. It should (imo) be looked at as a warning that, hey this kinda thing is serious, and we should keep ourselves in check and not hand the sentence out like it's going out of style. And when something like that happens, there should be major benefits, for the families of the wrongfully accused apologies from the commander and chief, right on down to the last jury member that voted yes. Their story should be shared, and yes a goddamn healthy sized check should be cut from the tax payers money that helped execute the person. It's not going to bring back their loved one, but it will go a long damn way to soothe the hurt to know an entire nation as a whole is sorry for what we put them through. And once that is said and done try like hell to find the real perpetrator.

Amen. Can't wait till this guy finally gets his day. And thankfully, DNA is making the rare mistakes further and far apart.

Murder of Danielle van Dam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He f*cking raped and abused her for days and at some point punched her teeth down her throat. I hope it burns really, really bad for him.

He'd agreed to a plea deal to give them the body days before it was found by searchers. Guilty as hell.

Did you just read what I wrote, or only that one sentence? God love you and me too but, I can't get behind you with this statement. Put him to death yes, do it swiftly and be done with it. I am not about making it hurt, or having them writhing in anguish, if that were the case I'd say life in prison, because I guarantee when it gets out what he did, the things that will happen to him will ultimately worse then anything the state can do. But yes put him to death and allow those that were directly effected have their closure, if that's what they seek. I told you I am about paying for the crime. Not about torturing the offender.

There are very few situations where I advocate torture, but I can say yea I do. For me not admit that I'd be lying. If it for instances keeps, myself, mine and my country men safe and there isn't the time, resources or any other way, then yeah do it. National security to mean means a alot. America pushing around, profiling, hurting and abusing her people isn't my thing. But that argument isn't the point of this thread.

actually, i think you make a good point as well

i think roxy is approaching this more from a perspective of justice rather than research. but both approaches have their merits and downsides.

edit - overall though i'd say the logical thing to do with a psychopath who committed a murder or whatever is have them do a thorough study of him and all that, and when the work on him is done then kill him.

also it sounds barbaric but i've always thought a simple way to execute people is just shoot them in the head. i don't see how that's any less humane than an injection or whatever and it's a hell of a lot cheaper.

Roxy, this happened in my back yard. I literally cried every single night as the trial details were shown on the TV. If they'd let me I'd f*cking torture this piece of sh*t for days. What he did to that innocent 7 year old girl was unspeakable and not worthy of a single ounce of compassion.

http://worldonline.media.clients.ell...082bf6ded075dc

http://www.forensicpsychology.net/as...nnis_Rader.jpg

Oh. I'm totally cool with the death penalty. Just as long as I can have the body.

Yup. I am not saying my perspective is the correct one at all, it's just how I feel. I started this thread, because I wanted to know how everybody else felt about it, not have stats jammed down my throat. I didn't ask what the stats said, I asked how you guys feel.

You may have the shoes and nothing else.

Good thing I have a foot fetish.

thinking about it more i feel like the reason we inject people instead of shooting them in the head is to protect the executioner rather than the prisoner

Though I lean a bit toward anti side I'm pretty neutral about the whole issue. I do think killing someone like Alieen Wuornos is just wrong. She clearly had a mental impairment. That kind of thing should factor into the decision making process. I don't think tsarnaev should get the death penalty either. His actions seemed completely puppeted by his older brother.

Also, with the whole injection process, the issue of running out of the drug to execute people with seems to have fizzled out. Anyone know what's going on with that?

Homie, your statements are everything I am not about. I am not looking at this from a fry the fucker stand point. I am looking at from the perspective, that they need to pay for what they did. You are advocating torture and that is the eye for and eye mentality that makes people with a pro death stand point look like bloated murdering fascist gas bags. Like I said before if I wanted to torture them I would send them to prision and leak out their wrap sheet before they get there, and let the prison system face **** them.

I personally see death as fair and just in cases like this. The offender took something so precious from someone, and they did it in a way that was so horrible the only fair thing is to put them to sleep. Much like the rabid dog statement I made in the beginning. You don't torture an animal, when they are rabid, you euthanize it in the way that they don't feel it. Instead of letting them suffer and possibly hurt more people. I feel like the death sentence is just that, only on a human level. I feel like it needs to be treated with reverence, and be handed out only when the situation warrants it.

Well its much cleaner too.

Comparing Westerfield with a rabid dog is wrong on every level. He was cold and calculating. Even after he had killed her he was still trying to figure out ways to escape. His defense even tried to pin it on his own son in order to get him off.

I'd torture the guy to death if given the opportunity.

i would think they could sanitize a simple execution chamber for a lot cheaper than what it takes to do the injection.

You would know. Considering you have shot a president in the head.

No I do not, and this is news to me, would you be kind enough to link me some info?

I agree with you also Dread, I don't think we should run around executing people who obviously have a mental illness or extenuating circumstances. By all means let them paint in the puzzle factory and make sure they remain medicated the rest of their natural lives receiving therapy. Imo if the death penalty were truly barbaric, we wouldn't give a **** who we execute. But we actually do care, that's why the country is divided and some states don't practice it. I live in a state where we do, and I am happy we have it.

In Wournos's case she was sane enough to know what she did was wrong. And I don't think she should have gotten death. I wouldn't have voted death if I were on that jury. I also wouldn't have given her life either. I would have given her 25. Because what was done to her the events that made her that way, also make her as much of a victim as the men she shot and killed. Don't make what she did right, but it's fair, again imo. I am for death when they aren't sorry, they don't care, and given the opportunity they will re-offend . That is a rabid human being, by my definition and they should be treated accordingly.

not when you look at humans as animals, and their thoughts and decisions as a complex manifestation of the same kind of instincts a dog relies on...

You gotta have some sort of brain rot, and soul decay to do that to a child. I didn't mean literally I meant it figuratively. You are using this guy as a focal point to advocate torture. And I am sorry I don't agree with you. I agree he should die for his crime, but I am not gonna make it as painful as possible, that's just not in me. I advocate doing what needs to be done, no matter if you get your hands dirty or not, I don't advocate taking pleasure in it. That only helps prove the anti death stance "well that makes us no better then them."

http://www.csg.org/pubs/capitolideas...issue65_4.aspx

Just a quick search for something but it's got the basics. Many European countries who manufactured the drug stopped and refused to ship any to the U.S. once the shortage became an issue. Then there was the whole fiasco with an execution in which a new cocktail drug was used and it took something like 15 minutes for the prisioner to die, and he didn't go peacefully. The whole thing just kind of went away.

I understand the anger that victims' families must feel toward the perpetrators and I'm sure if I were in their place my pure emotional response would be that I'd want terrible harm to come to the guilty person, but I don't think anger and vengeance make for good reasons to make serious policy decisions. Ultimately, I think it should be about what benefits society, and I don't think giving the state the power to execute people benefits society.

I guess that's where you and I just differ. I care much more about keeping innocent people from being wrong executed than I do about wreaking vengeance on guilty people.

Hrmm, that seems to be another way of shutting down the Us death penalty. I know a lot of countries won't send back a person facing death, even if they have extradition with the US. Well hopefully have discovered there are indeed other ways to kill someone where they feel nothing. As for Florida that isn't a problem, we have Ole Sparky. Which if you ask me needs to be taken down and replaced with an lethal injection room. Flipping the switch to a malfunctioning machine has to suck.

And sir, I respect your opinion.

Yes sir it is. I don't revel in the fact that mistakes get made. I prefer there to be beyond a shadow of a doubt, two times over that the person being executed is guilty. But I am not that much of a dreamer to think that mistakes don't happen. Doing everything in our power to keep that from happening is of the utmost importance.

It really was. I thought you meant do you prefer death over living?
Anyway, depends on the crime. Or are you talking about whether if I was convicted I would rather be put to death or spend the rest of my life behind bars? And does life mean life? Here life is about fifteen years...

Life here in alot of states means life. REMAINDER, not 15. Every case is different every crime is different and every victim and offender are different. Each case should be given the respect of it's own individuality and the sentences should be delved out accordingly.

I am sorry guys, I assumed vs. was enough to let you know what I meant. Sheeyot.

Can I just get an innocent hug?

Nappy time.

You know you'd love to share my nap.

Cuddles people.

Cuddles and hugs.

This exactly. I can't think of anything else worth mentioning. Well said.

I'm certainly not opposed to killing them, as someone like Jeffrey Dahmer is just so aberrant that their continued existence is of no non-scientific benefit to anyone, while also being extremely dangerous to society in general. But I also don't know that you could ever know when you'd learned everything you could learn from him.

There's just so much to be learned, and so much that may or may not be possible to accomplish by further study (e.g. better diagnosis, actual rehabilitation, developing more effective crime fighting techniques to capture serial killers, learning what red flags to look for in children at risk of developing into psychopaths and how to treat them, etc) that to simply decide that you've learned everything that there is to learn about an individual would be premature.

I'm not opposed to executing the most dangerous serial killers, but the theoretical benefits to their study are such that I am in effect arguing against the death penalty for them.

Yeh, and?

He's probably one of the kinds of people I'm talking about, and isn't likely to serve any non-scientific benefit to society, so in theory I wouldn't be opposed to removing him as a threat in a permanent fashion. But if he could be studied, and if the information we might gain from him could lead to eventually -- in a decade, or a century, or whatever -- saving more lives by using him as "psychological guinea pig" than we would by simply executing him, then wouldn't it be in our best interests to keep him alive?

If you just want revenge, then put on a shirt with a white skull and become a Charles Bronson-esque vigilante, but if you want to save lives, then get over yourself and start coming at the issue from a logical standpoint. As it is you aren't serving justice, just your own self-indulgent desire for retribution, and I have no interest in or respect for that.

What about those who reoffend after being released early? I read a lot of stories about murderers/rapists/paedos who do some of their time, get out early and go do the same damn thing again. How often does that have to happen before you get something like a "three strikes and you're dead" rule? Is that being too reactionary?

Don't forget: I come from the country where we could have had ten innocent people executed by the British for crimes they categorically did not commit were the death penalty still in force there. I'm never sure how I stand on this issue. It's too late to say sorry when someone is proven innocent if you've hanged, electrocuted or shot or injected them, but it's also equally too late to apologise to the person who becomes the next victim of the guy you could have executed instead of imprisoning him for "life", which often does not mean what it says.

Surely at the very least, early or any parole should be denied someone imprisoned for murder/rape?

Studies of mental illness are not performed in prisons though. There are an abundance of mentally ill people in psych facilities. How would that even save lives anyways? Even if they found something like a "psycho gene" how would that prevent anything?

Oh and I oppose the death penalty in all cases due to it being hugely expensive, ultimately pointless since the person is already removed from society, and there is also the whole false conviction angle.

I'm not for executing anyone whose psychology doesn't basically make them human in physical form only (i.e. Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Albert Fish, etc.) Life in prison I'm all for. Depending on the case, two or three strikes and you get life is fine by me.

You don't agree he should be awaiting a death sentence for what he did to that child?

No.

Tell that to strikes one and two.

Are you kidding me? You're more interested in killing somebody than people not being killed? What if my proposal had been implemented earlier, and had somehow led to this dude not killing that girl. Are you saying you wouldn't care, just so long as you got to kill some other guy from like twenty years earlier?

Seriously, either get a gun and go on a Punisher rampage, or ask yourself if your views actually reflect a useful solution to a problem.

Useful solution to a problem? So naive dude.

Did you read what he did to that girl? Pretend it's your little sister.