Bo Raxo wrote:


I don't think life is a right that can be forfeited. It is inalienable
and irrevocable, in my opinion.


Thats right! The Hawks lives were inalienable, and irrevocable in my
opinion too

That justifies a severe punishment, it doesn't justify killing them.

It does to me.


Now read that carefully: not "when guilt is unquestionable", but "when
the crime is heinous". That's a reality. That will never change. You
MUST judge the death penalty with that unchangeable fact in mind,
because if you don't, you're waving your magic wand and making the real
world disappear for fantasy land.

I have, and I support it. BTW, I dont' ahve a magic wand.

"Bo Raxo" wrote in message
ps.com...

tiny dancer wrote:
"Bo Raxo" wrote in message
ups.com...

tiny dancer wrote:
snipped

Thanks for the update on this one. Another one of those cases where
the
death penalty should be *streamlined*. Once they are found guilty
and
sentenced to die, give 'em one appeal and then stick the needle in
'em.
Just *my* opinion, of course.


Yeah, that'll bring the Hawks back to life, right? And make the
streets safer than if Skylar Deleon spends the rest of his life in
prison.

And there is no chance whatsoever that a 25 year old could grow and
change over the next two or three decades, doing good by working with
fellow inmates or convincing young people to not make the mistakes he
did. Like *some* other inmates who committed heinous crimes in their
youth have managed to do.

Nope, you say we might as well throw that life away as garbage. Must
be great to be able to see in to the future and know with such
certainty whether a person will ever be able to change and ever be
able
to do any good for his fellow man. I don't know where one finds such
certainty about human nature and the future, but somehow I think it
comes from a place to which I wouldn't want to go.


Bo Raxo


You have your *opinions* and I have mine.

But there are open-minded folks out there (one or two) who might be
swayed by my arguments.

Or yours.

Some crimes are so atrocious, so
hideous, committed by sociopaths.

Exactly how hideous does it have to be to let you play God?


IIRC, it was Deleon who *played god*. It was he who decided he wanted what
the Hawks had and decided to kill 'em for it. Now, he could have gone about
it the way the Hawks did. Work hard, for many many years. Save wisely, and
buy themselves their *dream boat*. But no, he chose not to go that route.
He CHOSE to kill 'em and take theirs instead. He CHOSE the time, place and
method of two peoples' deaths.

Now, were I going to *choose* my own death, lets see, would I choose to be
beaten up, handcuffed to my spouse, weighted down with an anchor, and be
dropped alive into the ocean? Probably not, just not my idea of a *neato*
way to die. Oh yeah, I forgot the amount of time where I'm tied up, have
duct tape over my eyes and mouth, ANTICIPATING my FINAL FATE. Probably an
hour or so.

IIRC, Mrs. Hawks was crying, pleading to see her grandchild. Nope, still
don't think it would be at the top of my 'ways to die' list.


Or a
person in a black robe? Or 12 people off the street?


See above.



You just don't get it bo.

So much for the "you have your opinion" approach.

Who gives a
flying **** about 'doing good for their fellow man'?

I do, obviously. Just because *you* don't, it isn't fair to say
*nobody* does. Obviously, *somebody* does. Or do you think I'm the
only person who is opposed to the death penalty?


Take a vote. How many people here, right here and now, on this case, think
Deleon should get the death penalty for the cold-blooded, premeditated,
particularly heinous and callous murders of two completely innocent people
who just happened to have what he wanted?



Criminals like
Deleon, Joseph Duncan, Charles Ng, gave up their right to a *future*
when
they cold bloodedly killed totally and completely INNOCENT VICTIMS.

I don't think life is a right that can be forfeited. It is inalienable
and irrevocable, in my opinion.


As were the lives of the victims, weren't they? Once they are GONE, you
seem to forget about 'em pretty damn fast. Deleon has killed before IIRC.
Just how many lives does he get to *forfeit*?



The
Hawks never got to see their grandchild. Remember him? The one they
were
selling their boat so they could spend time with the new grandchild.
Shasta
Groene will NEVER get back her innocence lost. She will NEVER get back
her
brother/s or her mom. The *victims* had no choice in the matter. Those
who
perpetrated the crimes/killings did.

That justifies a severe punishment, it doesn't justify killing them.


The *punishment* as prescribed is death, or at least it is a possibility. A
known possibility. Deleon KNEW he could get death. Do you think, on the
way back to shore, when he and his *buds* were eating the Hawks food and
fishing with their gear, they expressed any REMORSE for the killings of two
people? Do you suppose maybe they, oh say, said a couple Hail Mary's for
them?



And you live in a fantasy world.

And you sir, live in a cold and sterile world. One that negates the victims
the moment they are gone/dead. For just a second there, Paul Simons words
rang in my mind. I am a rock.

Deleon brought on his own misery. And he spread that misery to many MANY
unsuspecting victims, probably too countless to imagine. All the friends,
family, acquaintances of the Hawks. And probably many of the 'rec boats
talk' people who are posting or reading this. Deleon spread a bit of *fear*
I'd guess, among those who read about this crime. Recognizing that there
are such evil people in this world.


In your fantasy land, governments are
fair and wise, prosecutors restrained, everyone gets a fair trial and
nobody gets framed by crooked cops and ambitious d.a.s In your
fantasy, the death penalty is only used when it is absoloutely certain
the person did the crime. Heck, why not add that if they make a
mistake, the court will bring the dead man back to life, since you're
in a fantasy world anyway.

Out here in the real world the court system is adversarial and d.a.'s
run in elections. They go for the strongest penalties they can get
when the crime is heinous because the public demands it.

Now read that carefully: not "when guilt is unquestionable", but "when
the crime is heinous". That's a reality. That will never change. You
MUST judge the death penalty with that unchangeable fact in mind,
because if you don't, you're waving your magic wand and making the real
world disappear for fantasy land.


Bo Raxo


Yeah, right. In the real world, all the cases we've followed here on true
crime, most every one of them has been decided by a thoughtful jury who gave
the evidence significant weight in the process. You can mourn all your
sympathy to the dregs of society. Me, I like to save mine for the real
victims here. The innocent people who were merely going about their routine
lives, and ended up 'bumping into' the Deleons of the world.


td

Bo Raxo wrote:
snip


Nope, you say we might as well throw that life away as garbage. Must
be great to be able to see in to the future and know with such
certainty whether a person will ever be able to change and ever be able
to do any good for his fellow man. I don't know where one finds such
certainty about human nature and the future, but somehow I think it
comes from a place to which I wouldn't want to go.


Bo Raxo

I am normally anti-death penalty, but I have one name for you. Timothy
Buss. Google it.

-L.

"-L." wrote in message
ups.com...

Bo Raxo wrote:
snip


Nope, you say we might as well throw that life away as garbage. Must
be great to be able to see in to the future and know with such
certainty whether a person will ever be able to change and ever be able
to do any good for his fellow man. I don't know where one finds such
certainty about human nature and the future, but somehow I think it
comes from a place to which I wouldn't want to go.


Bo Raxo

I am normally anti-death penalty, but I have one name for you. Timothy
Buss. Google it.

-L.


And then google Kenneth McDuff.


Kenneth Mcduff was arrested May 4th, 1992. He was arrested when he should
have been dead.

Kenneth McDuff was convicted of the 1966 shooting deaths of two boys and the
vicious rape-strangulation of their 16-year-old female friend. A Fort Worth
jury ruled that McDuff should die in the electric chair, a sentence changed
to life in prison in 1972 after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the death
penalty. In 1989, with Texas officials under fire from the federal
judiciary, McDuff was quietly turned loose on an unsuspecting society.

Within days, a naked body of a woman turned up. Prostitute Sarafia Parker,
31, had been beaten, strangled and dumped in a field near Temple.

In early 1991, McDuff enrolled at Texas State Technical College in Waco.
Soon, Central Texas prostitutes began disappearing. One, Valencia Joshua,
22, was last seen alive Feb. 24, 1991. Her naked, decomposed body later was
discovered in a shallow grave in woods behind the college. Another of the
missing women, Regenia Moore, was last seen kicking and screaming in the cab
of McDuff's pickup truck. During the Christmas holidays of 1991, Colleen
Reed disappeared from an Austin car wash. Witnesses reported hearing a woman
scream that night and seeing two men speeding away in a yellow or tan
Thunderbird. Little more than two months later, on March 1, 1992, Melissa
Northrup, pregnant with a third child, vanished from the Waco convenience
store where she worked. McDuff's beige Thunderbird, broken down, was
discovered a block from the store.

Fifty-seven days later, a fisherman found the young woman's nearly nude body
floating in a gravel pit in Dallas County, 90 miles north of Waco. By then,
McDuff was the target of a nationwide manhunt. Just days after Mrs.
Northrup's funeral, McDuff was recognized on television's "America's Most
Wanted'' and arrested May 4 in Kansas City.

In 1993, a Houston jury ordered him executed for the kidnap-slaying of
22-year-old Melissa Northrup, a Waco mother of two. In 1994, a Seguin jury
assessed him the death penalty for the abduction-rape-murder of 28-year-old
Colleen Reed, an Austin accountant. Pamplin's son Larry, the current sheriff
of Falls County, appeared at McDuff's Houston trial for the 1992 abduction
and murder of Melissa Northrup.

"Kenneth McDuff is absolutely the most vicious and savage individual I
know,'' he told reporters. "He has absolutely no conscience, and I think he
enjoys killing.''
If McDuff had been executed as scheduled, he said, "no telling how many
lives would have been saved.''
At least nine, probably more, Texas authorities suspect.

His riegn of terror finally ended on November 17, 1998 when Kenneth McDuff
was put to death by the state of Texas by Lethal Injection. May his victims
rest in peace.

Now here we are, 14 years after his arrest and people want to abolish the
death penalty again. They want to set in motion the events that led to the
deaths of these women. When are people going to learn.


http://www.sherdog.net/forums/showthread.php?p=9389559


td

-L. wrote:
Bo Raxo wrote:
snip


Nope, you say we might as well throw that life away as garbage. Must
be great to be able to see in to the future and know with such
certainty whether a person will ever be able to change and ever be able
to do any good for his fellow man. I don't know where one finds such
certainty about human nature and the future, but somehow I think it
comes from a place to which I wouldn't want to go.


Bo Raxo

I am normally anti-death penalty, but I have one name for you. Timothy
Buss. Google it.


And life without parole wouldn't have worked as well? These days, a
crime like his would have gotten LWOP - sentences used to be lighter 30
years ago. And even murderers eligible for parole almost never get it
granted - not since Willie Horton.

Yes, his crime was heinous. That doesn't change the moral calculus of
whether it is right to kill people. It isn't. He tortured his second
victim, and raped him. Would you sentence him to torture? Would you
sentence him to rape? If those things aren't right, why is the killing
part right? Because it satisfies your rage?


Bo Raxo

"Bo Raxo" wrote in message
oups.com...

-L. wrote:
Bo Raxo wrote:
snip


Nope, you say we might as well throw that life away as garbage. Must
be great to be able to see in to the future and know with such
certainty whether a person will ever be able to change and ever be
able
to do any good for his fellow man. I don't know where one finds such
certainty about human nature and the future, but somehow I think it
comes from a place to which I wouldn't want to go.


Bo Raxo

I am normally anti-death penalty, but I have one name for you. Timothy
Buss. Google it.


And life without parole wouldn't have worked as well? These days, a
crime like his would have gotten LWOP - sentences used to be lighter 30
years ago. And even murderers eligible for parole almost never get it
granted - not since Willie Horton.

Yes, his crime was heinous. That doesn't change the moral calculus of
whether it is right to kill people. It isn't. He tortured his second
victim, and raped him. Would you sentence him to torture? Would you
sentence him to rape? If those things aren't right, why is the killing
part right? Because it satisfies your rage?


No, listen carefully. BECAUSE IT FIXES THINGS SO HE CAN NEVER AGAIN HURT
ANYONE ELSE, period.

You can *project* this rage if you choose. If it makes you feel better than
those of us who don't agree with you. But that's all it is, projection.
I've told you a hundred times, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with rage or
revenge. It has to do with safety. With being ABSOLUTLEY POSITIVE that
this scum will never again hurt anyone else. He will never have the chance
or opportunity to harm another innocent being, EVER. period.


td


Bo Raxo

Bo Raxo wrote:

And life without parole wouldn't have worked as well? Yes, his crime was heinous. He tortured his second
victim, and raped him. Would you sentence him to torture? Would you
sentence him to rape? If those things aren't right, why is the killing
part right? Bo Raxo

I'm not all that thrilled with humans to where I think they are too
wonderfull or sacred to kill, but that's just me. Where is your line
between right and wrong? Is your line written in stone or drawn in
sand? Are you flexible to circumstances? Some societies worst
punishment for the worst crime is shunning. LWOP seems pretty barbaric
compared to that. So, what is 'right' for you? What would be your
punishment for this alledged crime? Apparently LWOP is fine, but what
comes next? Would solitary confinement and bread and water be OK?
Therapy and counseling until the person realizes their mistake or
eventually dies? If they finally see the error of their ways, what
then? Please don't say roll call at the Pearly Gates trumps all earthly
punishments. Sam

Bo Raxo wrote:
And life without parole wouldn't have worked as well? These days, a
crime like his would have gotten LWOP - sentences used to be lighter 30
years ago. And even murderers eligible for parole almost never get it
granted - not since Willie Horton.

Coulda woulda should doesn't help Christoper. I am very much in favor
of life sentences - as long as they are true life sentences. This
monster should never have been released.


Yes, his crime was heinous. That doesn't change the moral calculus of
whether it is right to kill people. It isn't. He tortured his second
victim, and raped him. Would you sentence him to torture? Would you
sentence him to rape? If those things aren't right, why is the killing
part right? Because it satisfies your rage?

He deserves to be dead. It really is that simple. I wouldn't cry if he
was tortured and raped. He showed no mercy to Tara Sue or Christopher.
My Mom was Tara Sue's parents friend - my brother knows her brothers.
I went to highschool with Christoper's Mom. My best friend's sister
went to school with Buss - was in his class when he killed Tara Sue.
These people are very real to me.

Personally, I would have let Randy Huffman hunt him Buss down once he
was released, like Randy wanted to do. But the cops put a watch on
Huffman until Buss was out of town. Had Randy taken care of the
situation, Christopher would be alive.

-L.

And life without parole wouldn't have worked as well? These days, a
crime like his would have gotten LWOP - sentences used to be lighter 30
years ago. And even murderers eligible for parole almost never get it
granted - not since Willie Horton.

No Life without parole would not have worked as well. Yes that one would not
be able to hurt anybody but that does not change the fact that these sort of
criminals are not afraid of prison. They are not concerned with the
concequences of the law because they don't care. The only thing they are
afraid of is being killed. If you put this one to death then then the next
one that thinks about it, even while lacking the moral constitution to to
tell him killing is wrong, may think twice. Do it to every heinous killer
then they will start to be a afraid. I would much rather have psychopathic
killers terrified to do what they do, which is rape and murder, than have
good honest people terrified of doing what it is they do, which is try to
good by thier families friends and society. You claim that giving them LWOP
is a good thing because they could eventually, maybe do some good for some
other inmate. I claim that killing them does good for society.

As for the argument that killing is always wrong unless in self defense: 1)
How do you define self defense? The law in every state defines it
differently. In CA if you kill in self defense you have to prove that what
you did was not exsessive. How do you do that? I am a martial artist so if
I kill someone coming at me with a knife I could be sentenced to prison
because it could be argued that I could have "neutralized the situation"
without killing. The problem is that is far more dangerous to myself and
others around. If someone else does the same thing that has no training then
they are never questioned. Is it right that I have to be tried simply
becasue I am better prepared for psychos? I don't think so. 2) People have
killed for hundreds of years in this country for many reasons other than self
defense such as going to war to protect the very freedoms you are no
exercising. To say that killing is always wrong no matter what is way to
black and white. The fact is that respect for life and the preservation of
life are two different things, a fact that seems to escape you. All things
living today will die. I would even go so far as to argue that the Hawks
death in itself is not the tragedy but how they were forced to meet that
death that is the tradgedy. This, to me, is the true crime. Deleon Should
be put to death for that alone. A needle in the arm is far better than the
fate he deserves but because our society is trying to be good then we are at
least pleasant in the death that is dealt under the government. Taking his
life is not that big of a punishment. He will die someday anyways. Making
him afraid of meeting a similar fate as his victims is what he gets. Making
the sick killers of the world terrified that they will killed in a chair
weeping for thier freedom is more than enough justification to me.

You say that the system is flawed so we may be executing innocent people yet
you seem to have no problem with putting innocent people away for LWOP.
People aren't executed after thier first trial they spend decades proving
over and over that these people are guilty. Now lets say that the flaws in
the system mean that people get sentenced to LWOP or Death. You have no
problem with them being in prison for 50 years or however long it takes to
slowly die knowing they didn't deserve it, you just have a problem with
killing them after 20 or 30 years. Yeah thats so much better not to mention
the fact that you never advocated any reform of the system to make sure that
people who are guilty go to prison while those that are innocent stay out.
You never proposed a better solution to the real problem at hand.

The fact is that the system is flawed but it is the best one out there.
Comparing the U.S. to other countries doesn't work because the U.S. created
the sort of society and freedom that the rest of the world enjoys so much.
people complain about this country when they are happy and free, they
complain when we "meddle" in the affairs of the world but when a problem
comes that they care about then they complain if we dont help. Saying that
taking a worldwide vote would mean that we lose is probably the stupidest
thing I have ever heard because the rest of the world is able to make thier
choices and be free simply because the U.S. is here.

I say we should eliminate LWOP and make them all death sentences. It is
unpopular with the rest of the world but then again 200 years ago so was
democracy.

This is without even pointing out the fact that housing these people for the
rest of thier lives costs us an s-load of money. I am not saying that
killing people for money is okay but the fact is that they are still a
massive burden on society even if locked away. The money spent on housing
killers could very easily be spent on social programs and increased law
enforcement to make sure that innocent people aren't made victims and
criminals are caught. Giving LWOP reduces the availible recources.

--
Message posted via http://www.boatkb.com

"-L." wrote in message
ups.com...

Bo Raxo wrote:
snip


Nope, you say we might as well throw that life away as garbage. Must
be great to be able to see in to the future and know with such
certainty whether a person will ever be able to change and ever be able
to do any good for his fellow man. I don't know where one finds such
certainty about human nature and the future, but somehow I think it
comes from a place to which I wouldn't want to go.


Bo Raxo

I am normally anti-death penalty, but I have one name for you. Timothy
Buss. Google it.

-L.


Same here. I have opposed the death penalty all my life, but if we are
going to have it, this is the type of case where it's appropriate.

MaryL