Account of pair's fate at sea chills courtroom
 

Bama Brian wrote:
Nancy Rudins wrote:
Nick Hull wrote:
In article ,
"Beth In Alaska" wrote:

And I'm with Bo on the eye-for-an-eye crap. If we as a society
believe that certain behavior is wrong, then we can't condone it as
a punishment for criminals. We can't rape rapists as punishment, we
can't drive a car into the family of a drunk driver and we can't
kill killers.

Why not? Let the punishment fit the crime. Rape a rapist with a
broom handle until he dies. We should kill killers, preferably the
way they killed their victim. In this case I would advocate concrete
overshoes for the killer, put him chest deep in the water (at low
tide) ;)

Also, it would do good to let the victim's family execute the murderer.



You aren't advocating justice; you describe revenge as a suitable
punishment. Not unlike countries where thieves are punished by
getting their hands chopped off.

Define justice, Nancy.

Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian

I'll go by the dictionary definition:

Justice \Jus"tice\ (j[u^]s"t[i^]s), n. [F., fr. L. justitia, fr.
justus just. See {Just}, a.]
[1913 Webster]
1. The quality of being just; conformity to the principles of
righteousness and rectitude in all things; strict
performance of moral obligations; practical conformity to
human or divine law; integrity in the dealings of men with
each other; rectitude; equity; uprightness.
[1913 Webster]

2. Conformity to truth and reality in expressing opinions and
in conduct; fair representation of facts respecting merit
or demerit; honesty; fidelity; impartiality; as, the
justice of a description or of a judgment; historical
justice.
[1913 Webster]

3. The rendering to every one his due or right; just
treatment; requital of desert; merited reward or
punishment; that which is due to one's conduct or motives.
[1913 Webster]

4. Agreeableness to right; equity; justness; as, the justice
of a claim.
[1913 Webster]

Kind regards,
Nancy



--
Take a sad song and make it better (lennon/mccartney)
Take bad software and make it better (rudins)
http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/People/nrudins

Account of pair's fate at sea chills courtroom
 

In talk.politics.guns Nick Hull wrote:

In article ,
"Beth In Alaska" wrote:

And I'm with Bo on the eye-for-an-eye crap. If we as a society believe that
certain behavior is wrong, then we can't condone it as a punishment for
criminals. We can't rape rapists as punishment, we can't drive a car into
the family of a drunk driver and we can't kill killers.

Why not? Let the punishment fit the crime. Rape a rapist with a broom
handle until he dies. We should kill killers, preferably the way they
killed their victim. In this case I would advocate concrete overshoes
for the killer, put him chest deep in the water (at low tide) ;)

Also, it would do good to let the victim's family execute the murderer.

What "good" would that be, exactly? Why is revenge "good?"

The death penalty isn't punishment, since it's the loss of freedom or
privileges which is an integral part. Punishment by definition must
have an end, otherwise there's no point.

Main Entry: pun·ish·ment
1 : the act of punishing
2 a : suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution b : a
penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure

Suffering and pain END with death, and therefore so does punishment,
One must keep the offender alive in order to administer punishment.
Otherwise, it's murder for convenience.

You say "We should kill killers, preferably the way they
killed their victim." Why?


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Account of pair's fate at sea chills courtroom
 

"Nick Hull" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
"Beth In Alaska" wrote:

And I'm with Bo on the eye-for-an-eye crap. If we as a society believe
that
certain behavior is wrong, then we can't condone it as a punishment for
criminals. We can't rape rapists as punishment, we can't drive a car
into
the family of a drunk driver and we can't kill killers.

Why not? Let the punishment fit the crime. Rape a rapist with a broom
handle until he dies. We should kill killers, preferably the way they
killed their victim. In this case I would advocate concrete overshoes
for the killer, put him chest deep in the water (at low tide) ;)

Also, it would do good to let the victim's family execute the murderer.



If you really want to be truthful about this subject, I do think in some
instances, allowing the victims' family to 'have at 'em', would probably
ease that family far more than years of therapy. Notice, I'm not condoning
it, merely stating what I believe to be true. I'd bet Mark Klaas would
have *healed* more effectively had he been able to 'have at' Davis. JMO.
Same thing with Mark Lunsford, Steve Groene, etc. I could be wrong, but I
really do think, especially with the husbands/fathers of victims like these,
although they would still grieve forever, I'd *guess* their feelings of
helplessness/impotentcy might be abated a bit.


td

--
Free men own guns - www.geocities/CapitolHill/5357/

Account of pair's fate at sea chills courtroom
 

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

Account of pair's fate at sea chills courtroom
 

Main reason I am against the death penalty. . . $$$$$$$$. Rare that we
execute someone relative to the amount on death row and all the extra costs
related to both the trial and all the appeals afterward.

Isn't Texas like putting in a speed lane to the chair. I heard that in
Texas if there are 3 or more credible witnesses to a crime that qualifies for
the death penalty you get one appeal then you move to the front of the line
to get on the ride. The only reason it costs so much is because we have to
repeat the same process over and over to see if we get different results.
Killing them is not what costs so much, it's the pleasing of bleeding hearts
with decades of trials that only show the same things over and over again.
Here is an idea. Give them a trial, then one appeal. If they don't meet the
3 witnesss clause like in Texas then they get say 10 years in max security
prison to see if any new evidence can surface. One more appeal with no
admitance of anything the criminal has done in prison to say they are
reformed. If you didn't do it you can't be reformed. If found guilty then
thats it. Next week their time is up.

I think criminals would be more detered if there weren't so many people out
there looking out for them. If there weren't thousands of people that care
more for the criminals than for the victims. I also think that killing them
the way they did thier victims would also be a good deterent because when
they look at thier victims they will see thier own fate. Ever time you see a
murder trial on T.V. you see the killer looking sad but very little mention
of the victims. You hear thier names but that about it.

--
Message posted via BoatKB.com
http://www.boatkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/boats/200611/1

Account of pair's fate at sea chills courtroom
 

In article ,
Nancy Rudins wrote:

Bama Brian wrote:
Nancy Rudins wrote:
Nick Hull wrote:
In article ,
"Beth In Alaska" wrote:

And I'm with Bo on the eye-for-an-eye crap. If we as a society
believe that certain behavior is wrong, then we can't condone it as
a punishment for criminals. We can't rape rapists as punishment, we
can't drive a car into the family of a drunk driver and we can't
kill killers.

Why not? Let the punishment fit the crime. Rape a rapist with a
broom handle until he dies. We should kill killers, preferably the
way they killed their victim. In this case I would advocate concrete
overshoes for the killer, put him chest deep in the water (at low
tide) ;)

Also, it would do good to let the victim's family execute the murderer.



You aren't advocating justice; you describe revenge as a suitable
punishment. Not unlike countries where thieves are punished by
getting their hands chopped off.

Define justice, Nancy.


I'll go by the dictionary definition:

Justice \Jus"tice\ (j[u^]s"t[i^]s), n. [F., fr. L. justitia, fr.

3. The rendering to every one his due or right; just
treatment; requital of desert; merited reward or
punishment; that which is due to one's conduct or motives.
[1913 Webster]

Sounds like an eye for an eye ;)

--
Free men own guns - www.geocities/CapitolHill/5357/

Account of pair's fate at sea chills courtroom
 

In article ,
"tiny dancer" wrote:

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...

"comadreja" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Nick Hull wrote:
Nancy Rudins wrote:


There is never closure to losing a family member to murder. I've
read
of cases in which the family of a murder victim did not want capital
punishment for the murderer. The family of Ted Bundy's victims are
still grieving for their loss. His execution did not bring "closure"
to the loss.

It's fine with me if the victim and her family don't want capital
punishment, as long as I don't have to feed, cloth, shelter and guard
the perp, and as long as the perp can NEVER escape.

You are paying much, much more for appeals to both the State and
Federal Court for a Capital Punishment case than paying for the upkeep
and cost for someone with LWOP. The appellate reviews, the State paid
attorneys for the defendant, State Commission hearings etc. etc. etc.

http://janda.org/c10/statisticsnews/NoDeathPenalty.htm

-c

http://www.deathpenalty.org/index.ph...cost&menu=1%22

Main reason I am against the death penalty. . . $$$$$$$$. Rare that we
execute someone relative to the amount on death row and all the extra
costs
related to both the trial and all the appeals afterward.


Which is why I said the appeals process is a farce for somebody like Deleon,
or Charles Ng, or Richard Allen Davis, or so many MANY of those convicted of
these atrocious crimes. Crimes where *guilt* is not in doubt what so ever.
And where we all saw the *fair trial* process.

There is no reason why the death penalty should be expensive, except for
the lawyers who profit. If a person is sentenced to death, just take
him out of the courthouse and waste him. I would prefer selling his
organs and giving the money to the victim's family.

Certainly the system is not perfect and some innocent people will be
killed, but nothing in this world is perfect. Should we outlaw marriage
because half of them fail? The answer to bad verdicts is not endless
appeals but to improve the system to reduce bad verdicts. A court
should be a level playing field; if the same govt pays the judge, jurors
and prosecutor can you expect acquital if you lack a $million lawyer?
Separation of powers is the answer, our founding fathers knew it but
failed to implement it. See my web page for details.

--
Free men own guns - www.geocities/CapitolHill/5357/

Account of pair's fate at sea chills courtroom
 

In article ,
says...
In article ,
"tiny dancer" wrote:

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...

"comadreja" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Nick Hull wrote:
Nancy Rudins wrote:


There is never closure to losing a family member to murder. I've
read
of cases in which the family of a murder victim did not want capital
punishment for the murderer. The family of Ted Bundy's victims are
still grieving for their loss. His execution did not bring "closure"
to the loss.

It's fine with me if the victim and her family don't want capital
punishment, as long as I don't have to feed, cloth, shelter and guard
the perp, and as long as the perp can NEVER escape.

You are paying much, much more for appeals to both the State and
Federal Court for a Capital Punishment case than paying for the upkeep
and cost for someone with LWOP. The appellate reviews, the State paid
attorneys for the defendant, State Commission hearings etc. etc. etc.

http://janda.org/c10/statisticsnews/NoDeathPenalty.htm

-c

http://www.deathpenalty.org/index.ph...cost&menu=1%22

Main reason I am against the death penalty. . . $$$$$$$$. Rare that we
execute someone relative to the amount on death row and all the extra
costs
related to both the trial and all the appeals afterward.


Which is why I said the appeals process is a farce for somebody like Deleon,
or Charles Ng, or Richard Allen Davis, or so many MANY of those convicted of
these atrocious crimes. Crimes where *guilt* is not in doubt what so ever.
And where we all saw the *fair trial* process.

There is no reason why the death penalty should be expensive, except for
the lawyers who profit. If a person is sentenced to death, just take
him out of the courthouse and waste him. I would prefer selling his
organs and giving the money to the victim's family.

Move to China, where the particular fitness and need for a prisoner's
body parts often makes for a speedy execution.



Certainly the system is not perfect and some innocent people will be
killed, but nothing in this world is perfect. Should we outlaw marriage
because half of them fail?

Does marriage involve killing? Are the effects as irreversible as
death?


The answer to bad verdicts is not endless
appeals but to improve the system to reduce bad verdicts. A court
should be a level playing field; if the same govt pays the judge, jurors
and prosecutor can you expect acquital if you lack a $million lawyer?
Separation of powers is the answer, our founding fathers knew it but
failed to implement it. See my web page for details.

I don't know WTF you're trying to say here.

The disproportionate number of white perps, who get lighter sentences
for the same crimes, on death row, immediately makes the DP highly
suspect. It's pure circus for the masses, that's all.

Our ominous and powerful state shouldn't be allowed to kill people.
It's amazing that the same people who want less state controls will hand
over this power to their ultimate in corruption. How can you trust them
to kill the right person? What, is the State suddenly virtuous when it
allows an execution?

No matter how much a person deserves death (and there are many who do),
I'm not willing to give any government the power to make that decision.

bel

Account of pair's fate at sea chills courtroom
 

"Phoenix" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
In article ,
"tiny dancer" wrote:

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...

"comadreja" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Nick Hull wrote:
Nancy Rudins wrote:


There is never closure to losing a family member to murder.
I've
read
of cases in which the family of a murder victim did not want
capital
punishment for the murderer. The family of Ted Bundy's victims
are
still grieving for their loss. His execution did not bring
"closure"
to the loss.

It's fine with me if the victim and her family don't want capital
punishment, as long as I don't have to feed, cloth, shelter and
guard
the perp, and as long as the perp can NEVER escape.

You are paying much, much more for appeals to both the State and
Federal Court for a Capital Punishment case than paying for the
upkeep
and cost for someone with LWOP. The appellate reviews, the State
paid
attorneys for the defendant, State Commission hearings etc. etc.
etc.

http://janda.org/c10/statisticsnews/NoDeathPenalty.htm

-c

http://www.deathpenalty.org/index.ph...cost&menu=1%22

Main reason I am against the death penalty. . . $$$$$$$$. Rare that
we
execute someone relative to the amount on death row and all the extra
costs
related to both the trial and all the appeals afterward.


Which is why I said the appeals process is a farce for somebody like
Deleon,
or Charles Ng, or Richard Allen Davis, or so many MANY of those
convicted of
these atrocious crimes. Crimes where *guilt* is not in doubt what so
ever.
And where we all saw the *fair trial* process.

There is no reason why the death penalty should be expensive, except for
the lawyers who profit. If a person is sentenced to death, just take
him out of the courthouse and waste him. I would prefer selling his
organs and giving the money to the victim's family.

Move to China, where the particular fitness and need for a prisoner's
body parts often makes for a speedy execution.



Certainly the system is not perfect and some innocent people will be
killed, but nothing in this world is perfect. Should we outlaw marriage
because half of them fail?

Does marriage involve killing? Are the effects as irreversible as
death?


The answer to bad verdicts is not endless
appeals but to improve the system to reduce bad verdicts. A court
should be a level playing field; if the same govt pays the judge, jurors
and prosecutor can you expect acquital if you lack a $million lawyer?
Separation of powers is the answer, our founding fathers knew it but
failed to implement it. See my web page for details.

I don't know WTF you're trying to say here.

The disproportionate number of white perps, who get lighter sentences
for the same crimes, on death row, immediately makes the DP highly
suspect. It's pure circus for the masses, that's all.

Our ominous and powerful state shouldn't be allowed to kill people.
It's amazing that the same people who want less state controls will hand
over this power to their ultimate in corruption. How can you trust them
to kill the right person? What, is the State suddenly virtuous when it
allows an execution?

No matter how much a person deserves death (and there are many who do),
I'm not willing to give any government the power to make that decision.

Yep, and in the USA the government doesn't have that power. Only the jury
decides if they receive a death sentence or not.

Account of pair's fate at sea chills courtroom
 

In article ,
says...

"Phoenix" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
In article ,
"tiny dancer" wrote:

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...

"comadreja" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Nick Hull wrote:
Nancy Rudins wrote:


There is never closure to losing a family member to murder.
I've
read
of cases in which the family of a murder victim did not want
capital
punishment for the murderer. The family of Ted Bundy's victims
are
still grieving for their loss. His execution did not bring
"closure"
to the loss.

It's fine with me if the victim and her family don't want capital
punishment, as long as I don't have to feed, cloth, shelter and
guard
the perp, and as long as the perp can NEVER escape.

You are paying much, much more for appeals to both the State and
Federal Court for a Capital Punishment case than paying for the
upkeep
and cost for someone with LWOP. The appellate reviews, the State
paid
attorneys for the defendant, State Commission hearings etc. etc.
etc.

http://janda.org/c10/statisticsnews/NoDeathPenalty.htm

-c

http://www.deathpenalty.org/index.ph...cost&menu=1%22

Main reason I am against the death penalty. . . $$$$$$$$. Rare that
we
execute someone relative to the amount on death row and all the extra
costs
related to both the trial and all the appeals afterward.


Which is why I said the appeals process is a farce for somebody like
Deleon,
or Charles Ng, or Richard Allen Davis, or so many MANY of those
convicted of
these atrocious crimes. Crimes where *guilt* is not in doubt what so
ever.
And where we all saw the *fair trial* process.

There is no reason why the death penalty should be expensive, except for
the lawyers who profit. If a person is sentenced to death, just take
him out of the courthouse and waste him. I would prefer selling his
organs and giving the money to the victim's family.

Move to China, where the particular fitness and need for a prisoner's
body parts often makes for a speedy execution.



Certainly the system is not perfect and some innocent people will be
killed, but nothing in this world is perfect. Should we outlaw marriage
because half of them fail?

Does marriage involve killing? Are the effects as irreversible as
death?


The answer to bad verdicts is not endless
appeals but to improve the system to reduce bad verdicts. A court
should be a level playing field; if the same govt pays the judge, jurors
and prosecutor can you expect acquital if you lack a $million lawyer?
Separation of powers is the answer, our founding fathers knew it but
failed to implement it. See my web page for details.

I don't know WTF you're trying to say here.

The disproportionate number of white perps, who get lighter sentences
for the same crimes, on death row, immediately makes the DP highly
suspect. It's pure circus for the masses, that's all.

Our ominous and powerful state shouldn't be allowed to kill people.
It's amazing that the same people who want less state controls will hand
over this power to their ultimate in corruption. How can you trust them
to kill the right person? What, is the State suddenly virtuous when it
allows an execution?

No matter how much a person deserves death (and there are many who do),
I'm not willing to give any government the power to make that decision.

Yep, and in the USA the government doesn't have that power. Only the jury
decides if they receive a death sentence or not.

Uh, no, the state and federal governments are consulted on appeal and
every death row inmate files for a stay of execution or a reprieve from
multiple sources who are NOT juries.

The State decides if the DP is on the table at trial. The State decides
which attorney indigent perps will get to represent them. The officers
of the State (not juries) review appeals.

The Government sure as **** has power over the DP. And they use it
shamelessly to prove what a great old job they are doing for you and me.

bel