Number 1000

[rockouthippie]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/02/bo....ap/index.html

RALEIGH, North Carolina (AP) -- A convicted murderer was put to death Friday in the nation's 1,000th execution since capital punishment resumed in 1977.

Kenneth Lee Boyd, who was convicted of killing his estranged wife and father-in-law, received a lethal injection and was pronounced dead at 2:15 a.m.

[shakey_snake]

I'm not a fan of the death penalty, but is this really worth a smear campaign?
Let a man go in peace.

[xzxzzx]

Horrible. Simply horrible.

It's a bad way to go, too. Slowly slipping into unconciousness, knowing you'll never return... eww.

[rockouthippie]

One of the things that disturbs me is the sentences they give veterans. They are twice as likely to get death, and serve average twice the amount of time for the same crime as civilians.

It's pretty hard to get death in Oregon. Usually we reserve that for people like Jimmy Rode (Caesar Barone .... serial killer). I doubt Oregon would have executed him, but he is a veteran, and judges consider veterans to be a higher threat.

Another thing that bothers me is that it takes them 20 years to execute someone. If it takes that long..... why bother?.

[SSJ4 Gogitta]

<--- 100% in favor of death penalty.

I want to see the guillotine make a comeback.

[zootm]

<--- 100% against the death penalty.

State-sanctioned murder never really sat right with me

[LuigiHann]

Only a thousand in the whole country in almost 30 years? For some reason I thought it happened more often.

[SSJ4 Gogitta]

Originally posted by zootm
<--- 100% against the death penalty.

State-sanctioned murder never really sat right with me

Neither does raping kids. If a crime is serious enough, death penatly should be used.

If a guy kills 15 people because he's fucking insane, there is 0 reason why he should have the right to be kept alive. Do the world a favor and be rid of the bastards.

[zootm]

Originally posted by SSJ4 Gogitta
If a guy kills 15 people because he's fucking insane, there is 0 reason why he should have the right to be kept alive. Do the world a favor and be rid of the bastards.

He's human.

Besides, if he were insane, he wouldn't be killed.

[MidnightViper88]

Has anyone ever seen the movie "The Lottery"?

Let's institute that with inmates convicted of rape, murder, and the such, and let the public do the stoning...That would be fun...

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

I want to see the guillotine make a comeback.

It's quick. It's painless. It's messy, but it's also humane. And cost of operation is negligable to taxpayers. No electricity needed. No expensive injection hardware or chemicals. No expensive gas chambers. Just a simple wooden structure with a rope and blade.

[SSJ4 Gogitta]

Originally posted by zootm
He's human.

Besides, if he were insane, he wouldn't be killed.

So were the 15 hypothetical people he killed. Keeping him alive gives his murderous life more meaning than the 15 he ended.

Originally posted by sgtfuzzbubble99


It's quick. It's painless. It's messy, but it's also humane. And cost of operation is negligable to taxpayers. No electricity needed. No expensive injection hardware or chemicals. No expensive gas chambers. Just a simple wooden structure with a rope and blade.

Ever wonder why lethal injection needles are sterlized?

[shakey_snake]

Because it'd be cheaper than buying unsterlized needles.

[rockouthippie]

What do you do about this stuff?. I flip flop on it a lot. I think I have come to the conclusion that I am against capital punishment.

Some weird reasons:

First, someone has to do it. That's not so cool.

Second, it costs 10 million dollars, because of all the appeals.

Third- It takes too long. 17 years in this case. This keeps the case open for years too, with the press etc.

Some of our states, like Texas, are a little more bloodthirsty than I think the rest of us might like too.

Like I said, a domestic violence murder probably wouldn't get you death in Oregon. Ya gotta be Jim Rode.

Put em in a can, weld the lid on, but killing em' isn't really necessary.

I really don't care about the murderers. I'm more concerned about us. It's hard for us to do. Maybe we just shouldn't bother.

And we've been wrong a few times too. Kinda hard to undo that mistake.

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

Think about how much it costs to house convicted criminals for years at a time. That's a lot of taxpayers dollars being wasted on criminals that probably should have been executed (murderers, rapists, etc).

Ever wonder why lethal injection needles are sterlized?

Or why we drive on parkways and park on driveways?... Yeah. Sometimes I wonder, but not too hard.

[zootm]

Originally posted by SSJ4 Gogitta
So were the 15 hypothetical people he killed. Keeping him alive gives his murderous life more meaning than the 15 he ended.

I disagree. I think killing him gives validity to the act of murder.

This is one of those subjects where I know I'm right, and you know you're right, though. Arguing isn't going to solve anything. Every argument is a direct call to emotion.

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

Murder and execution are morally different things. Is it moral to kill 15 innocent people? Is it moral to kill one person that killed 15 innocent people in order to keep other people from possibly falling to the same fate?

[DrDel]

I totally agree with what you are saying!

I think that the death penalty is the way to go for all criminals

I also like the 3 strikes Youre out policy -- figures that it takes an American to bring baseball analogies into justice! lolers

but I do agree that the death penalty is the way to go!

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

I wouldn't go too far with that. I'm all for the death penalty, but only for convicted criminals that truly deserve it... like rapists, murderers, etc. Non-violent criminals don't really deserved death, imo. Would you really want to put a shoplifter to death? Nah. Make them do community service!

[xzxzzx]

Is it moral to kill even one person mistakenly in the name of "justice"?

I might actually be for the death penalty if our justice system were somehow capable of being 100% accurate. But it's not, no court can be.

It's not that I don't recognize that using the death penalty would be effective in preventing any further murders by a prisoner (of other prisoners, or if he escapes), and possibly would even reduce the overall death rate (by, perhaps, discouraging other would-be murderers).

But I don't view prison only as a punishment; it's more of a step to protect the citizens from a person. We use prison when we have said "this person can no longer be trusted enough to be free", while we use fines and community service and so on for lesser things, when we wish simply to punish.

Yes, we have innocents in prison, but that simply cannot be avoided, we must have prisons for the safety of our society, and while we try as hard as we can to make sure only those guilty of crimes get sent there, we cannot be 100% accurate, can never be, but that is an entirely necessary cost, one which cannot be avoided. Executing an innocent man is not.

Taking a convicted criminal's life &mdash; that displays to me only arrogance, a false pride in our courts, and it shows that we value the life of the innocent man so little that we would gladly give his life so that it might make a statement, or perhaps so that we would not have to spend so much on his prison cell.

[zootm]

Originally posted by sgtfuzzbubble99
Murder and execution are morally different things. Is it moral to kill 15 innocent people? Is it moral to kill one person that killed 15 innocent people in order to keep other people from possibly falling to the same fate?

Are they posing a threat to other people? No. You've caught them. They're in prison. Give them life without parole.

They still have the right to life. You still don't have the right to take their life from them.

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

The people that those murderers killed also had the right to life. When a person becomes a murderer, they give up their right to life. While they're in prison, they're doing nothing but burdening the taxpayers.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by sgtfuzzbubble99
The people that those murderers killed also had the right to life. When a person becomes a murderer, they give up their right to life. While they're in prison, they're doing nothing but burdening the taxpayers.

And the innocents who will inevitably die along with the guilty?

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

...are a fraction as many people as those who would die at the hands of such murderers.

[shakey_snake]

Originally posted by xzxzzx
Is it moral to kill even one person mistakenly in the name of "justice"?

I might actually be for the death penalty if our justice system were somehow capable of being 100% accurate. But it's not, no court can be.

I don't even think that that is an issue.
No matter what crime someone commits, a person always desrves a second chance to better themselves.

[LuigiHann]

How likely is it that a murderer, after years of prison, goes out and kills more people?

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by sgtfuzzbubble99
...are a fraction as many people as those who would die at the hands of such murderers.

... who would otherwise get life in prison without the possability of parole?

Originally posted by shakey_snake
I don't even think that that is an issue.
No matter what crime someone commits, a person always desrves a second chance to better themselves.

It's enough of an issue for me. A second chance is also a good idea, but I don't think we have the understanding of the human mind, in general, enough to allow for that for those who we would give the death penalty to.

Originally posted by LuigiHann
How likely is it that a murderer, after years of prison, goes out and kills more people?

Unfortuantely, pretty likely. Likelier than a normal citizen, anyway.

[shakey_snake]

Originally posted by xzxzzx
It's enough of an issue for me. A second chance is also a good idea, but I don't think we have the understanding of the human mind, in general, enough to allow for that for those who we would give the death penalty to.

Mind you, "a chance to better themselves" doesn't have to mean "reintroduction to society".

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

... who would otherwise get life in prison without the possability of parole?

...while sucking up taxpayer's dollars and eating up prison space that could be used to temporarily house non-violent criminals that could be released in a few years or so. If a murderer is put in prison with NO chance of ever being released, then what's the point? The point of prison is punishment for criminals that could possibly be released back into society. If you're only going to lock someone up until they die, why not just go ahead and get it over with, since obviously, they're not going to be "corrected," "rehabilitated," or otherwise changed for the better to be released back into society. The only thing you'd be accomplishing by keeping a murderer in prison for life is to use up working people's resources that could otherwise be used for better purposes.

[zootm]

Ah, so murder is preferable to spending money.

I get it now.

[shakey_snake]

The appeals process behind modern executions undoubtedly costs our country more than taking care of an inmate for a few more years.

[Phyltre]

Originally posted by zootm
Ah, so murder is preferable to spending money.

I get it now.

Well, really, from a nonreligious standpoint, what could you say is wrong with that?

[shakey_snake]

You're treating a person as a means rather than a person, a la Kant

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by shakey_snake
Mind you, "a chance to better themselves" doesn't have to mean "reintroduction to society".

Ah. In that case, I do agree to a limited extent.

Originally posted by sgtfuzzbubble99
The only thing you'd be accomplishing by keeping a murderer in prison for life is to use up working people's resources that could otherwise be used for better purposes.

Or possibly releasing him when it's proven that he was not the criminal...

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

... who would otherwise get life in prison without the possability of parole?

Or possibly releasing him when it's proven that he was not the criminal...

Now you're just contradicting yourself.

Ah, so murder is preferable to spending money.

No, execution is not murder. And spending money is not the same as wasting money.

The appeals process behind modern executions undoubtedly costs our country more than taking care of an inmate for a few more years.

A few more years? We're talking about housing inmates for the rest of their natural lives. Most of the time, that's quite a bit longer than a few years. And the appeals process is another proceedure that needs serious revamping.

You're treating a person as a means rather than a person...

So, you think murderers should get the red carpet treatment or something?

[zootm]

Originally posted by Phyltre
Well, really, from a nonreligious standpoint, what could you say is wrong with that?

Killing people in the name of the law then arresting people for killing people degrades the rule of law, for a start.

Really though, there's no argument here. The "efficiency" argument doesn't have a lot of validity because of the lengths of sentences and difficulties involved in carrying out the death penalty anyway.

Now you're just contradicting yourself.

No he's not. Parole isn't the same as new evidence proving someone innocent...

No, execution is not murder. And spending money is not the same as wasting money.

Spending money to keep someone potentially dangerous inside prison is not a waste. You're correct that execution is not technically murder though (murder is unlawful), but it is killing without necessity, which is good enough for me.

So, you think murderers should get the red carpet treatment or something?

Of course not. But killing them is a hilarious hyprocrisy.

[shakey_snake]

Originally posted by sgtfuzzbubble99
A few more years? We're talking about housing inmates for the rest of their natural lives. Most of the time, that's quite a bit longer than a few years.

During the 1988 slayings

Kenneth Boyd, 57, was executed early Friday for the murders of his estranged wife and her father.

World Health Report 2005 wrote
THe average life expectacy of a male in the US is 75 years.

So, we either pay for an average of 18 more years in prison (75-57), or we can pay for 17 years (2005-1988) of court costs, and 6-7 digit lawyers.
What do you think is going to be cheaper?
My bet is on prison.

Originally posted by sgtfuzzbubble99
And the appeals process is another proceedure that needs serious revamping.

Well, it isn't being changed and I doubt it will in the near future, so this isn't much of a point.

[SSJ4 Gogitta]

An execution need not cost more than the price of a decent rifle, a one-time buy, and the 50 cents for a 30-30 cartridge.

If you're sentenced to death row, you spend no more than 5 years in prison. This gives people ample time to attempt to prove him innocent. If they can't do it within the 5 year "statue of limitation", then tough fucking titty.

[shakey_snake]

I guess that makes sense. DUKA DUKA MUHAMMMAD JIHAD!

[LuigiHann]

I say we blast them into space.