-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