Where did we go wrong?

[CenTexSports]

Tonight at 12:01 am Utah is executing a convicted murderer

BY FIRING SQUAD!

What would be your choice for executing a murderer if they killed someone in your family?

I choose public hanging.

[44INAROW]

this should get good ;)

[coach]

what ever is the most painful way to die. i would want to do it myself in front of the murders family and make them watch....almost like that movie law abiding citizens

[BEAST]

Ive always thought the person should be put to death in the same manner they conducted their murders, publicly of course.




BEAST

[coach]

beast i think we could stop more crimes if we treated all crimes like that...you steal something valuable then you get something stolen from you...

[BEAST]

Originally posted by coach
beast i think we could stop more crimes if we treated all crimes like that...you steal something valuable then you get something stolen from you...

That has been my line of thinking for a long time. Prison isnt stopping anything. They get into prison and continue doing drug deals and so on from behind bars.




BEAST

[Txbroadcaster]

Threat of death does not stop it either..people have all sorts of reason why they commit crime, but they will never be detered no matter wht punishment is set for them.

[BaseballUmp]

If I remember correctly, this guy was on lockup on msnbc and he actually choose to be killed by firing squad

[coach]

Originally posted by BEAST
That has been my line of thinking for a long time. Prison isnt stopping anything. They get into prison and continue doing drug deals and so on from behind bars.




BEAST

yea i mean they can even smuggle in big macs like on the longest yard

[LE Dad]

Amputate their arms at the elbow and leave em in Gen pop for about 5 yrs, no parole or early release. That would solve a few problems. :D

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by BaseballUmp
If I remember correctly, this guy was on lockup on msnbc and he actually choose to be killed by firing squad

You are correct. The killer himself actually chose this. In Utah that is an option given to the murderer.

[AP Panther Fan]

Originally posted by SintonFan
You are correct. The killer himself actually chose this. In Utah that is an option given to the murderer.


:eek: :eek: :eek:

If he chose that, they should give him a lethal injection.

Actually, I don't think they should be given a choice in the first place. This method of execution doesn't set well with me. I know many of you will say he deserved something equally as gruesome as the act he must have committed, but the death sentence is just that - death. I don't think we should have to stoop to the means of a common criminal to carry out that sentence.

jmho

[PPSTATEBOUND]

Originally posted by CenTexSports
Tonight at 12:01 am Utah is executing a convicted murderer

BY FIRING SQUAD!

What would be your choice for executing a murderer if they killed someone in your family?

I choose public hanging.


Dehydration...:cool:

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by AP Panther Fan
:eek: :eek: :eek:

If he chose that, they should give him a lethal injection.

Actually, I don't think they should be given a choice in the first place. This method of execution doesn't set well with me. I know many of you will say he deserved something equally as gruesome as the act he must have committed, but the death sentence is just that - death. I don't think we should have to stoop to the means of a common criminal to carry out that sentence.

jmho

I wouldn't be surprised if Utah law changes after this.

[50 yard line fan]

My choice would be to have all the murderers put into a single room and each one would have to be made to run on a treadmill. All of these treadmills would be hooked up to a large generator. If they get tired of running on the treadmill, he/she could then go sit in a little steel chair at the other side of the room. Of course, the steel chair would be hooked up to the other end of the generator... :)

[AP Panther Fan]

Originally posted by SintonFan
I wouldn't be surprised if Utah law changes after this.

It should. I wonder if "others" including the family members of the victim and/or sentenced will have to witness this?

:dispntd:

[LionKing]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Threat of death does not stop it either..people have all sorts of reason why they commit crime, but they will never be detered no matter wht punishment is set for them. I disagree, I've asked people who commited crimes (some crimes that were very bad), all said they commited them because they thought they could get away with it, and that even if they did get caught, a slap on the wrist and not much more, what's ironic is that some of the lesser violent type crimes commited had the criminal serving longer sentences than ones that were more violent.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by LionKing
I disagree, I've asked people who commited crimes (some crimes that were very bad), all said they commited them because they thought they could get away with it, and that even if they did get caught, a slap on the wrist and not much more. Crimes warranting the death penalty are normally people who aren't deterred by the threat of death. They are not all Scott Petersons


Originally posted by LionKing
what's ironic is that some of the lesser violent type crimes commited had the criminal serving longer sentences than ones that were more violent. Drug laws and 3 strike. We have non-violent offenders serving longer sentences than violent offenders because of drug prohibition.

[AP Panther Fan]

Originally posted by SintonFan
I wouldn't be surprised if Utah law changes after this.

From Fox 13 Utah:

The debate over the method of execution has sparked international interest. News media from across the globe are expected to arrive at the Utah State Prison to cover the execution. Utah officially did away with the firing squad as a method of execution in 2004, but several inmates are "grandfathered in."

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by AP Panther Fan
It should. I wonder if "others" including the family members of the victim and/or sentenced will have to witness this?

:dispntd:

Have to, as in forced to? They may be allowed to if they request it, but have to, no.

I have no real problem with capital punishment if used properly. There are inherent problems with who and how, but in the end I suppose the ones who are executed will have real justice afterwards.

My problem is with the cost, both in dollars and time. When a person sits on death row for an average of over 10 years, there is a systemic problem. My opinion is they should get one automatic appeal to a court one step higher than the one that sentenced them, within six months, then the sentence is overturned or carried out.

The means of execution should be civilized, as we are after all a civilized nation. I am not certain what that means is, but smart people should be able to figure it out. All the "coulda, woulda, shoulda" is nothing more than media hype. Actually, a firing squad is quick and efficient. In many countries, sentences are carried out with no appeal and within weeks. Seems more humane in the long run. I would allow one appeal though, as long as it is not at the last possible moment.

[AP Panther Fan]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Have to, as in forced to? They may be allowed to if they request it, but have to, no.




Good point.

This was bothering me so I did some reading and found this (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/methods-execution) website. Death Penalty Information Center. Rather interesting, it lists methods of carrying out the death penalty by state.

I am glad to see that most states use death by legal injection as the preferred method.

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by DDBooger
Crimes warranting the death penalty are normally people who aren't deterred by the threat of death. They are not all Scott Petersons

Drug laws and 3 strike. We have non-violent offenders serving longer sentences than violent offenders because of drug prohibition. 3 strkes looks good on paper, but it is a huge burden on our prison system. Almost wish we could find an penal/rehabilitation island for non violent habitual offenders, might be able to make functional citizens out of them if you put them into a productive environment without drugs.

[BEAST]

Originally posted by AP Panther Fan
Good point.

This was bothering me so I did some reading and found this (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/methods-execution) website. Death Penalty Information Center. Rather interesting, it lists methods of carrying out the death penalty by state.

I am glad to see that most states use death by legal injection as the preferred method.


I am pretty sure you mean "lethal injection".




BEAST

[AP Panther Fan]

Originally posted by BEAST
I am pretty sure you mean "lethal injection".




BEAST


yep, that's what happens when you get older...;)

[BEAST]

Originally posted by AP Panther Fan
yep, that's what happens when you get older...;)


I thought it was a new way of putting people to death. You make the inmate listen to lawyers discuss whether or not lethal injection should be legal until the inmate offs himself.




BEAST

[AP Panther Fan]

Originally posted by BEAST
I thought it was a new way of putting people to death. You make the inmate listen to lawyers discuss whether or not lethal injection should be legal until the inmate offs himself.




BEAST


LOL....might save some time and trouble.:D

[LionKing]

Originally posted by DDBooger
Crimes warranting the death penalty are normally people who aren't deterred by the threat of death. They are not all Scott Petersons

Drug laws and 3 strike. We have non-violent offenders serving longer sentences than violent offenders because of drug prohibition. There always exceptions of total wackos, but it still goes back to what I first posted, most violent criminals that receive the death penalty don't believe anything will happen to them, remember Karla Fay Tucker (I believe was her name) who pick axe killed someone, even up until then-Gov. Goerge W. Bush denied her stay of execution, she thought she was even gonna get out of prison, even the ''Candy Man'' (can't remember his real name, dubbed the candy man by other prisoners) who poisoned his kids halloween candy for insurance money in the 1970's, he even thought he was gonna get out, even talked about what he was gonna do when he was released.

[Farmersfan]

The FIRST thing we have to do is change the name. Death Penalty implies that this a penalty or a punishment which will always cause some to question the mode or reason for it. If we called it a Disposal or a Elimination then we could start to think about it simply as that. Disposing of unwanted crimminals so society will not be drained by their existence any longer. There is no "other Place" to send them! Nobody else will take our trash. It's time we started taking the trash OUT instead of piling it up in prisons and welfare lines all accross our country. Once you have committed your 3rd strike we should not care why you did it, how you did it or if you will do it again. We should only be concerned with the fastest, most effiecient way to get rid of you!!! But that's just me thinking out loud!!!

[hawkfan]

Originally posted by CenTexSports
Tonight at 12:01 am Utah is executing a convicted murderer

BY FIRING SQUAD!

What would be your choice for executing a murderer if they killed someone in your family?

I choose public hanging.

I always thought convicted murderers should be chained to a car a drug through a patch of cactus until they died.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by LionKing
There always exceptions of total wackos, but it still goes back to what I first posted, most violent criminals that receive the death penalty don't believe anything will happen to them, remember Karla Fay Tucker (I believe was her name) who pick axe killed someone, even up until then-Gov. Goerge W. Bush denied her stay of execution, she thought she was even gonna get out of prison, even the ''Candy Man'' (can't remember his real name, dubbed the candy man by other prisoners) who poisoned his kids halloween candy for insurance money in the 1970's, he even thought he was gonna get out, even talked about what he was gonna do when he was released. That's an anecdotal reference and definitely not a generalizable case considering it was a woman on death row.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
The FIRST thing we have to do is change the name. Death Penalty implies that this a penalty or a punishment which will always cause some to question the mode or reason for it. If we called it a Disposal or a Elimination then we could start to think about it simply as that. Disposing of unwanted crimminals so society will not be drained by their existence any longer. There is no "other Place" to send them! Nobody else will take our trash. It's time we started taking the trash OUT instead of piling it up in prisons and welfare lines all accross our country. Once you have committed your 3rd strike we should not care why you did it, how you did it or if you will do it again. We should only be concerned with the fastest, most effiecient way to get rid of you!!! But that's just me thinking out loud!!! Kim Jong Il? lol

[BaseballUmp]

I think what they are going to do is get about 5 or 6 officers give each one of them a gun and tell them all to shoot at the same time...only 1 gun will have a bullet but all will have the doubt that it was from there gun that actually killed him

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by BaseballUmp
I think what they are going to do is get about 5 or 6 officers give each one of them a gun and tell them all to shoot at the same time...only 1 gun will have a bullet but all will have the doubt that it was from there gun that actually killed him ...but what if they miss??:eek: :eek:

[BaseballUmp]

Or maybe its the other way around 5 bullets in 6 guns with one blank and they can all think that maybe they have the blank

[MUSTANG69]

Originally posted by LE Dad
...but what if they miss??:eek: :eek:

Use a shotgun.:D

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by DDBooger
Kim Jong Il? lol



See what I mean?? I just mention taking out the trash and Booger equates it to Kim Jong I. It's THIS mindset that will have to change before we will ever move forward. If punishment and deterence doesn't work then the only thing left that is practical is elimination. Unless you advocate we just continue to live with it like we have been doing? (even though we all know it isnt' working)

Booger, ever see Soylent Green? Could solve the world hunger issue..........:D

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by BaseballUmp
Or maybe its the other way around 5 bullets in 6 guns with one blank and they can all think that maybe they have the blank


That is how they do it

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
See what I mean?? I just mention taking out the trash and Booger equates it to Kim Jong I. It's THIS mindset that will have to change before we will ever move forward. If punishment and deterence doesn't work then the only thing left that is practical is elimination. Unless you advocate we just continue to live with it like we have been doing? (even though we all know it isnt' working)

Booger, ever see Soylent Green? Could solve the world hunger issue..........:D Can't be Saddam :thinking: , Mullah Omar?

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
That is how they do it That sounds better than 1 bullet. I could just see a lawyer jumping out after a botched attempt.

[LionKing]

Originally posted by DDBooger
That's an anecdotal reference and definitely not a generalizable case considering it was a woman on death row. All I Know is, is that she was a pick-axe murderer that thought she was gonna get out of prison, just like many other prison convicts think while their incarcerated on ''death row''.

[Txbroadcaster]

The problem with Death penalty..the ones who are executed but were innocent. Just in dallas county alone they have been freeing innocent people wrongly convicted some of those off death row

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
The problem with Death penalty..the ones who are executed but were innocent. Just in dallas county alone they have been freeing innocent people wrongly convicted some of those off death row




Lawyers make a lot of money finding the loopholes and angles to get people out of trouble. This list is obviously to promote an agenda so read the FACTS rather than the manner in which they are presented.

Is 138 released out of 7,713 since 1976 enough of a trend to outlaw the death penalty in your opinion?


http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Lawyers make a lot of money finding the loopholes and angles to get people out of trouble. This list is obviously to promote an agenda so read the FACTS rather than the manner in which they are presented.

Is 138 released out of 7,713 since 1976 enough of a trend to outlaw the death penalty in your opinion?


http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row

Better 10 Guilty Men Go Free than to Convict a Single Innocent Man

And those are ones that were saved...what about ones executed who WERE innocent?

[nobogey72]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Better 10 Guilty Men Go Free than to Convict a Single Innocent Man

And those are ones that were saved...what about ones executed who WERE innocent?

BINGO!!!!!:clap: :clap:

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Better 10 Guilty Men Go Free than to Convict a Single Innocent Man

And those are ones that were saved...what about ones executed who WERE innocent?




Seriously? And how do you feel about all the harm to 100's of other innocent people the 10 released Guilty men commit in their lifetime? Let's allow harm to 100's to save 1! Maybe we could sell bumper stickers?
Also how does the extra expense of keeping them in prison for life effect the quality of life for MILLIONS of innocent people?

Protecting 1 person at the expense of millions of others is a good moral high ground for teaching babies in school but has no practical application in reality!

[GUNHO]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Better 10 Guilty Men Go Free than to Convict a Single Innocent Man

And those are ones that were saved...what about ones executed who WERE innocent?

That's why we have the long appeal process and in some cases it wasn't long enough to save the innocent.I'm not against the death penalty but I also want a person to have every chance to prove his/her innocents.It's clear the system we have in place is not fullproof,but there has to be a time line, are these appeals would go on forever and some that are innocent have no way to prove it anyway.So the only way to make sure an innocent person is not exicuted is to do away with the death penalty.I'm on the fence on this though.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by GUNHO
That's why we have the long appeal process and in some cases it wasn't long enough to save the innocent.I'm not against the death penalty but I also want a person to have every chance to prove his/her innocents.It's clear the system we have in place is not fullproof,but there has to be a time line, are these appeals would go on forever and some that are innocent have no way to prove it anyway.So the only way to make sure an innocent person is not exicuted is to do away with the death penalty.I'm on the fence on this though.

It's innocence and foolproof.:D

From what I see in the news, most people found guilty and later exonerated are found innocent due to DNA analysis which was available or less sophisticated at the time of the trial. If we now have the ability to test DNA with great accuracy, it seems to me that eliminates many of the previous problems.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Seriously? And how do you feel about all the harm to 100's of other innocent people the 10 released Guilty men commit in their lifetime? Let's allow harm to 100's to save 1! Maybe we could sell bumper stickers?
Also how does the extra expense of keeping them in prison for life effect the quality of life for MILLIONS of innocent people?

Protecting 1 person at the expense of millions of others is a good moral high ground for teaching babies in school but has no practical application in reality!

so your ok with killing a few innocent people for the "greater good"

[OldBison75]

I was an investigaotr involved in a case where two boys, under 10 years old, were rencered unconscious and placed in a shed in the backyard of thier home by thier step-father. He then set the building on fire and both were killed. He was an insurance adjuster and immediately filed a claim with the insurance company for life insurance he bought 30 days before the fire.

This man was convicted by a jury and given life in prison, not the death penalty. He went to prison and even admitted to a prison doctor that he had indeed committed the crime.

Now the innocence project is investigating the case because there have been so many advances in the field of arson investigation in the last 25 years that they feel they can prove the arson investigator might have reached a different conclusion if he had the new technology.

The reality is that the fire was investigated by several investigators that all reached the same conclusions and the biggest factor was that the kids were placed in a shed, the doors were locked from the outside, and the fire was started in the doorway that was the only exit from the building, thereby blocking any possible exit by the kids ven if they had not been disabled. In trial the step-father testified that the kids wanted to be with thier father and that since the courts had ruled that the mother had custody, they were so distraught that they went into the shed and set the fire to kill themselves. Of course this was disputed by the mother and other family members and friends.

I interviewed this killer several times and can tell you first hand the was smug and even stated that even if we did find enough evidence to convict him, he would win an appeal because nobody would believe he intentionally killed the boys.

This is a very limited discussion of the case, but it shows that when a person chooses to kill , especially when they plan the method and carry it out, they still believe that what they are doing is the right thing to do and that they can justify the result.

I would personally carry out the death penalty on this creep if given the chance. I would love to cover him in gasoline and set him on fire. I looked into this guys eyes after the crime and there was no remorse and no emotion, just a smugness and evil that he was the one that would win and that he was smarter than those investigating the case. He even laughed when arrested and told us that he would walk out of the jail in a day or two, collect the insurance, and live a happy life while he sued everybody involved.

[CenTexSports]

The military calls it "Collateral" loses. I don't want any innocent person killed but can it be any worse than an innocent person spending their entire life in prison?

I guess I am saying that I am willing to accept the chance to keep the death penalty.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
so your ok with killing a few innocent people for the "greater good"



Innocent people have paid the way for the greater good since the beginning of time. Without the killing of innocent people you wouldn't have the right to hold such a high moral principle as you have!
Besides, I don't think the question was ever about if I was ok with killing a few innocents! I think the question was "How far was I willing to go to prevent the killing of a few innocents"?

Hypothetical that should prove whether you actually believe as you have indicated:

If you knew that 10 out of the 11 school teachers at your childs school were sexual predators, but you didn't know which 10, would you allow them to continue to teach your child in order to protect the one innocent teacher from wrongful persecution?

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Innocent people have paid the way for the greater good since the beginning of time. Without the killing of innocent people you wouldn't have the right to hold such a high moral principle as you have!
Besides, I don't think the question was ever about if I was ok with killing a few innocents! I think the question was "How far was I willing to go to prevent the killing of a few innocents"?

Hypothetical that should prove whether you actually believe as you have indicated:

If you knew that 10 out of the 11 school teachers at your childs school were sexual predators, but you didn't know which 10, would you allow them to continue to teach your child in order to protect the one innocent teacher from wrongful persecution?

apples and orange..If 10 out of 11 were predators you invesitage, if you still cant tell who it is you fire em all..that is not KILLIING them. Losing a job and losing a life is different.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
apples and orange..If 10 out of 11 were predators you invesitage, if you still cant tell who it is you fire em all..that is not KILLIING them. Losing a job and losing a life is different.




Considering this is just a philosophical question, the level of the sacrifice that you are willing to force on the innocent person is not important. Death or hardship does not matter. The point is you have still intentionally imposed incorrect judgment on a innocent teacher to protect your child from the other 10 teachers. Everything else is just semantics. So in truth it is NOT better to free 10 guilty people than to convict 1 innocent person. Thanks for playing!!!! :D

[garciap77]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Seriously? And how do you feel about all the harm to 100's of other innocent people the 10 released Guilty men commit in their lifetime? Let's allow harm to 100's to save 1! Maybe we could sell bumper stickers?
Also how does the extra expense of keeping them in prison for life effect the quality of life for MILLIONS of innocent people?

Protecting 1 person at the expense of millions of others is a good moral high ground for teaching babies in school but has no practical application in reality!



Is it more expense to execute someone or keep them in jail for life?

:thinking:
http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by garciap77
Is it more expense to execute someone or keep them in jail for life?

:thinking:
http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty



Certainly the death penalty appears the more expensive option. But that is based on current policies of repeated appeals and an average of 10 years on death row........... Streamline the process and the cost is reduced greatly.

[garciap77]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Certainly the death penalty appears the more expensive option. But that is based on current policies of repeated appeals and an average of 10 years on death row........... Streamline the process and the cost is reduced greatly.

:iagree:

Make the appeals to no more than three! But, wait wouldn't that cost many Lawyers their jobs?:D

[Ernest T Bass]

No one commits a crime thinking they might get caught, so punnishment is not a deterrent.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Considering this is just a philosophical question, the level of the sacrifice that you are willing to force on the innocent person is not important. Death or hardship does not matter. The point is you have still intentionally imposed incorrect judgment on a innocent teacher to protect your child from the other 10 teachers. Everything else is just semantics. So in truth it is NOT better to free 10 guilty people than to convict 1 innocent person. Thanks for playing!!!! :D

bull crap..TOTALLY different. Losing a job over your life or going to jail are totally different. being innocent to keep a job is a different standard than being innocent to stay out of jail or to be executed.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
so your ok with killing a few innocent people for the "greater good"

Sorry to interject here:
I am not OK with killing anyone innocent(even though innocents are killed every day by murderers), but present day technology and forensics have advanced enough to insure that this doesn't happen.
Keep in mind that there will NEVER be a 100% accurate system to determine guilt.

Does that mean we scrap the Death Penalty? I say no.

The system we now have is much better than most civilizations in the past or present. Many judicial systems have presumed guilt first and the burden of proof has to prove one innocent.
Here in the USA, one is assumed innocent and the burden of proof is to prove one guilty. Our appeals process is second to none and abused everyday.
Today, I would guess that many violent and non-violent criminals(and some murderers) go free because of our system is set up to protect the innocent.

[Pick6]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
so your ok with killing a few innocent people for the "greater good"

Pharaoh's son was innocent, he had to die for the greater good, as did the first born of quiet a few.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by SintonFan
Sorry to interject here:
I am not OK with killing anyone innocent(even though innocents are killed every day by murderers), but present day technology and forensics have advanced enough to insure that this doesn't happen.
Keep in mind that there will NEVER be a 100% accurate system to determine guilt.

Does that mean we scrap the Death Penalty? I say no.

The system we now have is much better than most civilizations in the past or present. Many judicial systems have presumed guilt first and the burden of proof has to prove one innocent.
Here in the USA, one is assumed innocent and the burden of proof is to prove one guilty. Our appeals process is second to none and abused everyday.
Today, I would guess that many violent and non-violent criminals(and some murderers) go free because of our system is set up to protect the innocent.

I never said I was agianst the Death Penalty...I do think it should be used for only cases where DNA evidence is used, because IMO that is the only forensic tool that really cant be disproven