Fricking scumbags.
Why wait until July seriously? Other than wasting money for “T&L”, it is pointless…
Fred.
This guy and his partner are textbook example of why we need the death penalty. Amazingly there are people who would argue they still do not deserve death. My dad being one of them. We argued for hours about it, but to know avail. Sounds kinda like this place. Remember to post something when they die so we can celebrate it.
honestly, I was all ready to oppose the death penalty but after reading about this case it is highly indicated.
Exactly. This is the obviously extreme and heinous beyond belief. And while I can appreciate people not supporting the death penalty, I did at one time, I just don’t know how anybody could oppose these two dying at the hands of the justice system.
Sadly, I bet it’s (putting on my chainpin hat) 20 fucking years before they are actually executed.
Funny, now I’m starting to lean the other way. I think the death penalty makes it too easy for them. I want them to suffer every day for the rest of their miserable lives. I want them to beg for someone to kill them.
Either that or burn them severly and throw them into a pit with wild, hungry animals after they’ve recovered from their burns.
The death penalty should be a no brainier. You murder someone or someone dies while you are committing a crime you die.
I think a lot of DP opponents would agree with you in theory. Unfortunately, things aren’t quite so clear in reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates#United_States
I think a lot of people hesitate because people are wrongly convicted and you can’t take back the death penalty.
Case in point: http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/25/10233263-wrongfully-convicted-man-awarded-25-million
And that is what I struggled with. But no system is perfect. Instead we should tighten controls over the death penalty. For instance, here in FL, a prosecutor has a lot of leeway for going for the death penalty and a lot of incentives. The Casey Anthony case was a prime example. They used the threat of the death penalty as a negotiation tool. When it didn’t go as planned, they used it to boost the prosecution’s case budget? When the case evidience was too week to support death, they than turned around and said you can go with a lesser charge. For it to be fairer, certain crimes should be declared death penalty eligible by virtue of legal hurdles. Once that has been declared, it should not be eligible for negotiation, so there is no we’re going for capital murder, but if you want to negotiate we’ll go with manslaugter. Finally, if the case does not support death, only the jury can recommend otherwise. There should be no, found guilty on a lesser charge. That lets the prosecution aim high, knowing something will stick.
This guy and his partner are textbook example of why we need the death penalty. Amazingly there are people who would argue they still do not deserve death. My dad being one of them. We argued for hours about it, but to know avail. Sounds kinda like this place. Remember to post something when they die so we can celebrate it.
There is a very long distance between these type of people deserving the death penalty and the death penalty being a good idea. These guys probably deserve the medieval style drawing and quartering.
But have you ever really thought about why the list of countries with the death penalty is a goup of countries that generally we would not like to be associated with? http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html
He won’t be put to death by the state. Not this year, not in 20 years.
Heck, just last year, as the trial was ongoing, the legislature tried to overturn the death penalty law. They only backed down because the trial was current. Just wait until a few years go by, CT will no longer have it.
And that is what I struggled with. But no system is perfect. Instead we should tighten controls over the death penalty. For instance, here in FL, a prosecutor has a lot of leeway for going for the death penalty and a lot of incentives. The Casey Anthony case was a prime example. They used the threat of the death penalty as a negotiation tool. When it didn’t go as planned, they used it to boost the prosecution’s case budget? When the case evidience was too week to support death, they than turned around and said you can go with a lesser charge. For it to be fairer, certain crimes should be declared death penalty eligible by virtue of legal hurdles. Once that has been declared, it should not be eligible for negotiation, so there is no we’re going for capital murder, but if you want to negotiate we’ll go with manslaugter. Finally, if the case does not support death, only the jury can recommend otherwise. There should be no, found guilty on a lesser charge. That lets the prosecution aim high, knowing something will stick.
But, of course, none of this addresses the fact that innocent people have been and will be put to death under the death penalty.
Carrying out the death penalty is also, in each condemned prisoner’s case, initially and finally a political decision. That a governor’s decision on a commutation rests at any level on his desire to be reelected I find odious. Or the DA’s political aspirations for signing off on seeking the DP at the start.
I understand strong death-penalty believers and sympathize with families that want to see guys like this pay a price for the evil they did to family members. But the cost is too high. No number of these horrid human beings balance the cost of killing an innocent one.
I think a lot of DP opponents would agree with you in theory…
I don’t think that you understand most DP opponents very well. The vast majority of strong DP opponents simply oppose government execution, period. The emphasis on exonerations/cost/lack of consistency in sentencing/lack of deterrence/ etc. is primarily to convince undecideds to also oppose the death penalty. People just have different views on this issue. There is a good argument that he should be made to live with the consequences of his action for the rest of his natural life. Also, I think that it is EXTREMELY likely that the state will end the death penalty before he is executed.
That’s why I said “a lot”, not most. I think I understand anti-death penalty people reasonably well as I actively participate in the movement. But whatever you say.
Between DNA, polygraphs and evidence I will take my chances with the verdict handed down by my peers.
Between DNA, polygraphs and evidence I will take my chances with the verdict handed down by my peers.
DNA isn’t present in the vast majority of cases. Polygraphs are not a reliable form of evidence and generally are not admissible. And the only evidence available in many crimes is eye witness identification which is notoriously unreliable.
And that’s if everyone followed the rules.
Mistakes are still way too common to be comfortable with taking your chances.
Sadly, I bet it’s (putting on my chainpin hat) 20 fucking years before they are actually executed.
That would be the shortest time I would put my money on.
Personally I think this is a text book example of why we need a the option fora slow inhumanly painful death penalty. These are the people that make me hope there really is a Hell.
There are going to be cases that are so open and shut they shouldn’t bother with a trial. For others, let’s let the system be the judge. I don’t see any other alternative besides
life behind bars and that’s not punishment enough.