This is still about killing people. It is still wrong. Executing in a "relatively humane way" my foot. Pro execution arguments ooze double think, hypocrisy and corruption of thought and language. But they are all good Christians, I am sure.

Murder begets murder.

The Guillotine is quicker, __ more humaine. Of course it's bloodier, kinda messy.

To date, there have been over fifty convicted people serving long prison terms in just the state of Texas, who have been set free when DNA tests proved they were innocent. Some were on death row. I wonder how many we will kill over the years one way or another, who are totally innocent of any wrongs.

I wonder how many innocentwe have already murdered?

The American Judicial system has never protected the poor. Remember, you only get the amount of justice you can afford. Therefore, until we are ready to provide an OJ dream team for all death penalty cases, we must stop all executions!

Moonshadow..
"..it costs more money to execute someone than to incarcerate them for life..."
Sorry, that is rubbish. You, or somebody else, made it up..
Please reread point 4)
The issue of the egregious treatment of coloured people in the US is a wider matter for all Americans to tackle and for many reasons.. It extend far beyond the issue of capital punishment, although that is certainly one of it's most appalling manifestations.
Good. modern forensics are not beyond the capacity of a country with the resources of the US.. On the other hand.. HHhhmmm.

1) I am not a Christian,
2) I do not espouse a philosophy that all human life except some is precious.
3) I do believe that some capital crimes deserve a capital penalty.
4) A society has a duty and responsibility to protect the majority of its members from the PROVEN (very important consideration) criminal depradations of a minority.
Much serious crime against the person is commited by people who have no hope of changing, being rehabilitated or turning into Nobel Prize winning writers.
At best they should be seperated from society, for reasons of (4) above.
They can either be incarcerated for life, meaning until they die in prison, which is probably very inhumane if not incredibly expensive, or they can be executed.
Intravenous medication (i.e an anaesthetic..) properly placed by a properly trained person is NOT painful ..
As such, of itself, it is a considerably more humane than many of the people receiving it.

More than one person/child has been seriously assaulted, raped and murdered by some released, paroled "but we thought they were changed" known murderer/rapist etc.
That is more than one too many.

Therzal, it costs more money to execute someone than to incarcerate them for life. If you are a person of color, you are more likely to be sentenced to death. If you are poor and have to use a state-sponsored lawyer, then you are more likely to be sentenced to death. There have been too many people sentenced to death because of inadequate legal representation and lazy police work, then subsequently found innocent for me to approve of the death penalty any more, though I did when I was younger, and used many of your arguments. If the criminal is imprisoned for life, then society is safe, and I personally don't think that it's inhumane for them to contemplate what they've done for the remainder of their existence. And if mistakes are proven to be later on, they can be released. While wrongful imprisonment is always a tragedy, it is less of one than killing an innocent person.

Until it is truly "equal justice for all" in this country (and I don't ever see that happening), I cannot approve of the death penaly.

Sorry, therzad, but it's not rubbish. It's been a while since I looked it up, but I wasn't pulling that fact out of thin air. Some links for you:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/annapolis/2007/02/capital_punishment_at_the_capi.html
http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html
http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/death/issues.html

There were more, but those were some from a quick search I did. The last one in particular has links from both points of view. There are arguments about how these things are calculated, but interestingly enough, death penalty adherents like to drive the costs of executions down by suggesting that we limit appeals. I personally think the numbers are sound enough(particularly in California) that they can be used as a valid argument, even before the undeniable uneveness of application of the death penalty is considered.

If THERZAL was wrongly accused of a henious crime, tried and convicted with circumstancial evidence and the testimony of an 'eye' witness,___ sentenced to death for a crime someone who looked like him committed, ___ he may have a different opinion, ___ when the humaine needles were gently placed into his veins as he lay strapped to a gurney in a white walled, well lit room, and observed the poisonous drugs flowing through plastic tubes from the sterile bottles,__ and the last thing he saw, was his loved ones observing his execution from behind a large and thick glass window.

Or, a less expensive high teck guillotine. Face up or face down? __ Gotta have a last request.

therzal wrote:

"The issue of the egregious treatment of coloured people in the US is a wider matter for all Americans to tackle and for many reasons.. It extend far beyond the issue of capital punishment, although that is certainly one of it's most appalling manifestations."

You admit to the inequality yourself! I'm willing to give up saying executions are more expensive (although there are enough state studies to prove my case) if you give up saying we're saving money by doing them, and then we can address the most obvious injustice of how the death penalty is administered.

You also said: "More than one person/child has been seriously assaulted, raped and murdered by some released, paroled "but we thought they were changed" known murderer/rapist etc.
That is more than one too many."

Why did you even use this as an argument? We're not talking about paroling murderers here, but the merits of LWOP vs. the death penalty. If someone is in prison for life without parole they're hardly out murdering people.

I've been on a couple of pro-death penalty sites. One of them stated that the execution drugs cost $86.08 and the implication was that that minimal expense was better than all the appeals and expense of keeping someone imprisoned. Well, if you want to travel further down that road, the ultimate economy is one speedy trial with no appeal, and a hemp necktie on the courtyard square, or perhaps a one-way trip into the backwoods where the condemned can dig their own grave with the county shovel before being shot in the head. But I thought that we were trying to be better than that. What if it turns out you executed the wrong person after the fact? An innocent person? Do you just tell the family "Oops, we're sorry!"?

Enough people on Death Row have been able to prove their innocence after the fact to cast doubt upon the death penalty. We undoubtedly executed innocent people before the advent of DNA testing, and I don't think it's right to sacrifice a certain percentage of innocent people to execute criminals.

Moonshadow..
A simple IV anaesthetic simply can not cost more than life time incarceration.. I don't care how many references you paste in..

Exactly what do you NOTt understand about the following? Did you actually READ it??
4) A society has a duty and responsibility to protect the majority of its members from the PROVEN (very important consideration) criminal depradations of a minority.

I read your post THERZAL and fully understand your position. ___ Do you read and fully understnd other's positions?

There have been many (PROVEN) beyond any doubt, killers executed, who were INNOCENT. There have been many PROVEN killers on death row, awaitng execution, who have been PROVEN beyond any doubt, to be innocent and have been released from prison, some after serving 25 or more years,__ wrongfully incarcinated. __ Oops, so sorry.

I personally have little trouble with the execution of Timothy McVeay types, or the many serial killers who have admitted their crimes and even gloried in committing them. There is a problem there also, it sets the tone of a society, who would prefer killing over prison, because of the cost. We have means to insure they are never released, or escape. There of course is a problem at times. Execution does not in any way justify those type of errors. Very harsh prison conditios with no plesures of any kind for those who are Timothy McVeayt ypes would be more effective in prevention than the death penalty. No TV, no readng amterials, no letters, no visitors, no chess games, or anthing but a fair smll cell, a bed, a head, and decent three meals a day until they die.

I agree, a bullet, a rope, or a bottle of poison, is cheaper than a life time of incarination. If a death penalty is acceptable, for whatever the reason, or whomever the criminal is, it degrades that society as barbaric, we've taken a human's life, which is perhaps not much better than the criminal who murdered. Some say it brings closure to the family of the victems. No,___ there NEVER is closure when a loved one dies. Closure and revenge are two seperate things.

Therzal-what part of "if a person is locked up for the rest of their life then society is protected from them" do YOU not understand?

So sorry I bothered to prove to you I wasn't just spouting rubbish. When someone accuses me of making something up, then I give them sources to back up my position, then they say they don't care how many sources I quote to back up my position, there is no logic or point in talking to them further. Thanks, Kem-you said it better than I could.

Moonshadow.. Because they are NOT all locked up for life. Many get out and reoffend.
AND I suggest that lifetime incarceration is far more inhumane than execution.. or is that your benign intention??
I did not bother to read the postings you provided..I am talking about the actual process, not all the various machinations around..
I know what an IV anaesthetic costs to administer.. I know what a year in prison costs, even at the most basic.. It's not a hard calculation.
So having now looked...
Please explain to me how they arrived at the figure of an extra $400,000 to sentence a convicted killer to death as opposed to sentencing them to prison for life.. What process costs that much and why?? After a forensically water tight case, it does not make any sense that actually deciding a disposal method is so ridiculously expensive.. .. Somebody is making a profit.. That is disgusting..

KEM PATRICK..
??? I understand very well.. I do not agree, philosophically and logically with the presented stance and statements.. It's called an "alternative view point" Is that OK with you??
How many people have to be victims of a murderer before you belive in capital punishment?
5, 50?? How do you arrive at that number??
What about corporate crime that kills people?? Execute the CEO.. Gotta say I do like that one..
Looks as if there is a cost threshold above which your humanitarian approach to life turns into a utilitarian approach.

THERZAL, you had asked if one could understand your positions. I asked the same of you, is that alright with you? It is perfectly alright with me if you have a different opinion. What I do see, is you IGNORE the most important issue on the subject of the death penalty.

You also ask how do I arrive at the figure of from 5 to 50? I never set any figures, so I don't understand why you ask that of me. One murder is enough for me to put someone away for life with no chance of parole. The flaws are the methods and the laws of incarnation in some states which allow psychopathic types of people to be released, when they should be confined for life. Those flaws should be corrected.

The very important issue you totally ignore is, you do not say anything about those who are sentenced to death, and are NOT guilty of any crime. After they are executed it is a bit late to have their sentence reversed, to have a new trial if applicable. I believe a life sentence in almost isolation, withh no privelages is a very appropriate punishment, ___ you disagree. That's Okay with me, we all have opinions. However, you do not address the most important issue here.

Let us take Timothy Mcveay for just one example. He murdered over 150 people in a senseless, mean and horrible act, there were more than 25 children, either killed or maimed for life. Did he deserve to die? I think so. I also believe he wished to die after realizing what he had done, after being locked up in isolation for several months.

He refused to allow his lawyers to go through the normal appeals process. He was executed and his pain and suffering ended. Sorry, but I would have preferred him to live with himself, with nothing to do but sit and think, no books, no radio, no pictures, no TV, no window to gage out of, just a small cell with a concrete bunk, a pad, blankets and a steel sink a metal mirror and a toilet. One hour a day of walking alone in a fenced in exercise yard. A one hour visit a week with a man of the cloth, two showers a week, no one else ever converses with him again,__ never. A life of isolation, to sit there thinking, day after day, year after year, thinking about what he had done, and knowing his life was forever to be, an eight by ten foot metal room. That's punishment, and we don't put ourselves down to his level of animalism, by killing him.

KP...
I typed...
4) A society has a duty and responsibility to protect the majority of its members from the PROVEN (very important consideration) criminal depradations of a minority.

The logical conclusion that one could be expected to draw from the above .. PROVEN (very important consideration)... Is that a Proven conviction is a very important consideration...
What could I possibly mean by that?? Could it be that I mean I it is very important to PROVE guilt so that by logical extension or inference, the NOT guilty are NOT punished?? My other comments obviously addressed that issue by perhaps too subtley for you to grasp.. My mistake..
Sorry, I thought the inflections and intent of my words was reasonably clear..

Further, you propose...
"..A life of isolation, to sit there thinking, day after day, year after year, thinking about what he had done, and knowing his life was forever to be, an eight by ten foot metal room. That's punishment, and we don't put ourselves down to his level of animalism, by killing him..."

No, you would barbarously torture them for the rest of their life by placing them in solitary confinement.. In case you do not know that, that send people quite mad, depersonalises them...
Adding insult ot your form of injury you propose to subject them to enforced religious influence.. .
What you hypocritically and with transparant malice propose, is a far far more bestial punishment than quietly slipping away from an IV injection. which you seek to deny them..

You are a sadistic barbarian. And I bet you call yourself a devout person, don't you??

Nope I never call myself devout. You are assuming, don't bet much on it. Do you call yourself devout? I believe those who commit henious crimes such as the McVeay, Jeffrey Dahmer types, or people who torture and kill people just for fun or the thrill, or for sexual pleasure, don't deserve anything but solitary. That is in my opinion, justice well served and a better deterrant to crime than the death penalty.

They would have scheduled medical evaluations and if they were going mad some treatment could be given. If they don't like the housing conditions and strict rules, don't commit the crime. Not every person who had killed someone, just those who have been proven by solid DNA evidence, and or video surviellance and admitted killers, child molesters who have also murdered their victems.

You on the other hand, think an eye for an eye and strapping a perosn on a gurney and injecting them with poison is alright, that is not torture to you, sitting and waiting for the final day and hour, and then going through the death room procedures. And evidently it doesn't matter to you if they are actually guilty or not. ZAP em. I'd prefer they die a natural death, ___ all alone.

Now I didn't get personal and speak badly of you for your opposite opinions. Why do you believe it necessary to attack me personally, call me a sadistic barbarian because of mine? You never have addressed the points made by myself and others, about so many who are on death row, or have been executed who were innocent.

I fully understood your word PROVEN ___ THERZAL, and how you defined it.

What you still FAIL to address is, many PROVEN have NOT been guilty at all. Hundreds who were on death row, or sentenced to life terms, have since been PROVEN to be innocent. If those were executed as you bellieveis alrigh, after all you say, it was PROVEN they were guilty, that is a very important consideration. Again, onemore time, all of those 'proven' to be guilty were NOT guilty. Do you want to kill them anyway? With a death penalty __ it happens?

You have never answered that point. What we are saying is, no death penalty, for several very good reasons. You fail to answer that and still insist that the death penalty is alright. And I'm a brarbarian? What are you, besides being a sophist?

KEM -- He doesn't get the idea of being:
__ D E A D __
_ W R O N G _

Oh. Well, he is coversing with a barbarian and that may have altered his thinking a bit. Maybe he will listen to you. ___ Maybe not.

KP..
You continue to feign ignorance of what I am typing and the conditions that are suggested .. Perhaps you are not..
So final effort here..

If people have been wrongly executed and their innocence proven/demonstrated later (a truly dreadful situation) then I suggest that the (forensics etc) evidence at the time was not applied, ignored, improperly handled, fixed, etc etc. The defence was incompetent or biased etc etc ..
That is what you should be addressing. If such a process can not be demonstrated then no legal judgement let alone a sentence, is either logically or humanely possible.
IS THAT clear enough?

Call it what you like, invoke mythological phraseology if that makes you feel more pure..
Execution by IV injection for a person whose case has been properly handled, whose guilt is proven beyond doubt, without the help of kindly police confessionals, is far more humane than anything you propose. Your pious plan for a life time of solitary incarceration is unspeakably barbaric. That certainly sinks below the standards of any previous barbarian behaviour.

THERZAL -- By Jove, I think I've got it!

You really believe that it is KEM's responsibility to address the failings of the justice system (1st), as you say: "That is what you should be addressing. If such a process can not be demonstrated then no legal judgment let alone a sentence, is either logically or humanely possible."

You're just focusing on killing them off, after their guilt has been ABSOLUTELY ASSESSED and proven beyond a reasonable doubt, right?

If we could just get better public defenders, proper (un-tainted) and accurate evidence, and less zealous prosecutors, we could kill in peace, right?

Sorry, the system entails (from smelly nose, to dragging forgone tail) ALL aspect of dispensation of justice, and a logical person wouldn't just jump over the top of a clearly insurmountable problem of accurately determining guilt or innocence, just to expeditiously keep the hammer down on the killing.

Besides that, a reverence for life means that ALL people carry a sacred LIGHT, and who are any of us to caste the 1st stone?

Namaste … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … Mahatma Gandhi … … … … … … … … … …
« We must be the change we wish to see in the world »
« There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed »

Nope he/she don't get it and never will.

In the past eight years, 51 men on death row in Texas alone were found by DNA evidence, they were absolutly not guilty of any crime and have been released, one innocent man had been in jail for over 50 years. Hundreds more aross the country await DNA testing, scientific methods which were not available when they were convicted. Even DNA tests do not help every innocent person who are in jail for life or on death rows. Sometimes DNA was not evidence at their trial, there was none to use.

If you believe isolation for hard core killers is barbaric treatment THERZAL, you should write your congress person, because it is done and acceptable treatment in every state. Had some TRULY barbaric individual ever tortured, or raped and killed one off my loved ones, that type of a sentence would suit me just fine. I would not wish to see them have the privelage of a death sentence.

The Green River mass murderer, who admitted to 48 murders,___ and it is believed he killed at least 70 young wemon, was sentenced to life in prison. He spends 23 hours a day, every day, in a 8 by 8 foot square cell. No privelages, nothing but three meals a day. I did not put him there. I would have allowed a 8 by 10 foot cell and a three inch wide window, ___ being a humaitarian type of barbarian.

Final posting on this now "off topic" topic.
IV injections for executions are not "cruel and unusual".
Solitary confinement for life is a far more wicked and evil a punishment ("eye for an eye" and all that, usually espoused by the truly saved) than execution.. As KP intends.
Looks very much like a revenge motive to me.. What was that about NOT descending to the criminal level?
If you have suffered such a loss, that is very sad but not a reason to lower your own standards.
If you haven't, such a cynically emotive reference just confirms your wicked philosophy

I live outside the good ol US of A (as a perusal of the time stamps might have indicated to you.)

Glad to hear that

Perhaps you could answer these points in a debating manner without the personal attacks.

Do you believe it is fair to put a person in jail for fraud, or for contempt of court, or for perjury, or refusing to pay taxes? People are jailed for those crimes, not just to protect the public, but as a (form of punishment), they are also fined for punishment. Traffic violations are subject to fines, it is a form of punishment and the more serious the offense, the higher the fine. Punishment is designed to be a deterrant to crime.

Therefore, if we belive punishment for criminal acts is reasonable and indeed an effective method of deterrance, then the punishment should fit the crime, __ fair is fair. Therefore, why for an example, should a 50 year old man, who has shot and killed a police officer during a dispute and is sentenced to 40 years to life in prison, be treated the same as a serial killer, who has murdered several young wemon for his sexual pleasure? The state has no death penalty and the serial killer now shares a cell with the other killer. Same punishment,___ one of the punishments is not fair. __ Which one?

Punishment in our legal system, is designed to deter crime and to protect the public. Children are punished if they break the rules, adults are demoted, don't recieve bonuses and raises, or are fired from jobs if they break the rules. Mass murderers are punished if they mass murder. What should the punishment be is the debate.

Finally THERZAL, you keep avoiding the issue of the death penalty, is it fair? You say it is and I find that to be more barbaric than solitary confinement, which is not just punishmet, it is a deterrance. I also believe kiling by lethal injection is indeed cruel. If we have to kill a person to protect ourselves, a firing squad or a bomb would be far more humane, that is my opinion. In my opinion, there is no humane method of killing a person, and punishment should fit the crime and be a deterrant. So get off of your high horse and join the huuman race, you are not the only one who has opinions.

KEM -- Thank you, at least you'll find agreement - but justice is as fleet as that sabertooth tiger was, and as likely to turn and run from a mere mortal human.

I suspect, as other's like Geo Carlin have spoken of, that if we started providing the same maximal "justice" to white collar criminals, that:

_(1)_ All crime would disappear immediately

_(2)_ All capital punishment would similarly disappear

Yes, a blindfold is over the eyes of the statue of justice and the scales are level. The crime goes on one plate, the punishemnt on the other, they should balance. ___ They often do not, but the blindfold is never removed.