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

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 03:21:03 -0500, "tiny dancer"
wrote:


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

Bo Raxo wrote:
tiny dancer wrote:


Think Kenneth MacDuff.

He got a plea bargain, that's how he got out. You want to outlaw plea
bargains? Has nothing to do with death penalty versus life without
parole.


Oh wait, I was thinking of someone else. This is an hilarious example:
if he'd been originally sentenced to LWOP, nobody else would have
died.

But he was given the death penalty, under a flawed process, and the
conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court. And the state whose
law he was convicted under was poorly written so it didn't roll over to
a life sentence, as with for example Manson. *That* is why he got out -
poorly written laws, and *because* people like you wanted the death
penalty.

No death penalty, and he would not have gotten out. Plus, that
loophole in state laws has been plugged, overturn the death penalty and
they automatically become LWOP. So it is no excuse to keep killing
people.

You want to claim the system is flawed, and that is a reason to execute
people? Do you see that makes no sense?


Bo Raxo


Nope, wait until you have a kid. And somebody hurts your kid. I'm thinking
you might change your story. Especially if you find out your kid was just
one in a long line.

You mean a kid like Devin Miles Gibson, diapered and left to
asphyxiate in the car, his mom, acquitted of all charges, quipping:
"Putting me behind bars wasn't going to solve anything. No matter what
the outcome was, it wasn't going to bring Devin back."

You were fine with that one, Tiny. Sure, it was probably not
intentional (funny, how she'd finally discovered the concept of
"outcome", a bit late for Devin's sake), but then no one ever
suggested Michele face capital punishment in turn.

Fact is, most of the same arguments you use on career criminals apply
he there's no reason to assume she won't have more children, no
reason to assume she'll be more responsible or better able to care for
them in the future. No reason at all to believe there won't be more
Devins in her future.

His death was even more agonizing than the Hawks', more prolonged ...
and wasn't his *mother* supposed to care for him? What do you suppose
his last thoughts were as he lay, suffocating, burning up, encased in
his own ****?

Was *that* a better way to die than plunging through icy waters
weighted down by your own anchor?

Yet you were fine with Michele walking away scot-free.

I've had it with degenerates who treat innocent human beings as pawns in
their sick games. Yes, there is a difference in human life IMO. There is
no way in hell I'd lay down my life for Joseph Duncan or this Deleon dude.

Sorry, but the raw outrage is misplaced here. I don't necessarily
agree with Bo, I don't care what happens to the Duncans or Davies of
this world. I *think* capital punishment is nearly run its course in
the USA (hell, even the Chinese, its most enthusiastic practitioners,
are backing off a bit on it), but that's neither here nor there.

You seem like the quintessential juror for whom the circumstances of
the case are less important than the question, does she identify more
with the victim or the perpetrator?

Andy Katz

wrote in message
oups.com...

Bo Raxo wrote:
wrote:
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

Okay, ,we agree so far. So if it's wrong to take a human life (except
in self defense), then it's wrong whether the life belongs to a couple
of retirees or a couple of cold-blooded killers.

After all, wrong is wrong. And two wrongs don't make a right.

I don't see it that way.


Bo, I don't thinkt hat the "Killers" had any respect for life at all.
let alone their own.


Sorry pard, the only people listed here who had the right to "life,
liberty, and the persuit of happiness," were the victims, of those who
cold bloodedly forfieted their (Hawks)rights, for them.

I'm sorry, well, not really..but I can't follow your sympathy for the
criminals listed.


My practical view is that we ought to eliminate the death penalty. Costs
too much to execute them. 10-15 times the cost to keep them the rest of
their lives. That said, we can have special prisons for them. No TV, no
library, no radio. Get to sit in their cells 23 hours a day.

"-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

"Duke Nukem" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 18:57:27 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


My practical view is that we ought to eliminate the death penalty. Costs
too much to execute them. 10-15 times the cost to keep them the rest of
their lives. That said, we can have special prisons for them. No TV, no
library, no radio. Get to sit in their cells 23 hours a day.

My practical view is kill 'em all immediately.

That would be OK also. One appeal, 2 weeks later. By-by. Friends daughter
was kidnapped and badly abused before being killed. They got the death
penalty, the bad couple were about 40 2 years ago when sentenced to death.
They will probably die of old age.

In article ,
"tiny dancer" wrote:


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?


I vote to eliminate this evil scumbag ASAP.

In case you forgot, this cretin tried to have his own father killed
while in Jail awaiting trial in this case.

Hey Bo, what do you have to say about that?

Pigeon

Bo,
In my opinion, pal, you are one sick *******. It is the same logic
you use right here in your argument that probably drove these useless
pieces of human garbage to do what they did to those two wonderful
people. What makes you feel this way? Is it because you can relate to
what Skylar, his despicable whore of a wife, and their cohorts were
thinking when they committed such an ugly atrocity to fellow human
beings? You are a pathetic loser.

Liberalism is a mental disorder, indeed.

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.

MaryL wrote:
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

Buss got the DP and it was stayed when then Gov. of IL George Ryan
(whom I also know) abolished the DP in Illinois. I wished he (George)
could have waited a bit longer.

-L.

In many ways I thing Gov. Geo needed it himself.


-L. wrote:
MaryL wrote:
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

Buss got the DP and it was stayed when then Gov. of IL George Ryan
(whom I also know) abolished the DP in Illinois. I wished he (George)
could have waited a bit longer.

-L.