The Death Penalty to 40 years old Vince Li !! See him I have the link !!

[Daringly]

My idea of "the faint hope clause" would be the very slim chance the rope might break as they are being handed.

What we could do in an open and closed situation like this Li case is give him his choice of 3 different ways of dying, all painful of course. This may satisfy the bleeding hearts because at least he will have been given a choice which is more then what his victim got

 

[JustBob]

That is not the purpose of our laws. Our legal system is so much more than this example of shallow thinking. Our laws serve several very noble functions. They allow us to live in harmony with each other. They protect us from ourselves. They define us, what we believe in, what we value, what we are willing to die for to protect and most importantly are an expression of just how seriously we intend to protect what we believe in. This last point is really what the debate is about. It's not about petty revenge at all. It is about creating a climate that will instill in all of us the morality of our regard for the sanctity of human life and the right to life. Taking the life of another may entail losing that right for yourself if it comes to that. If you are looking to a future of greater peace among us and the diminution of crime then socializing our populace to these values within this context is the way. The arguments you have presented merely mitigates our regard for the right to life of all our citizens and cheapens human life. We deserve so much more.

The death penalty is mostly about revenge, it's an eye for an eye, it's people out for blood, and it has little to nothing to do with justice, and certainly has nothing to do with instilling "morals and ethics" in society.

Go back to my list of "top executioners for 2007" and ask yourself why pretty much all so-called civilized nations on the planet have taken steps to abolish (totally or partially) the death penalty. Because governments should not be in the business of executing their own citizens. THAT cheapens life. THAT sets a bad example. You're going to tell citizens that it's not ok to solve problems by killing people and you're going to turn around and do exactly that? Nice lesson in morals and ethics...

Justice is impersonal, deliberate, and principled.

Vengeance is personal, angry, and particular.

Vengeance is this antithesis of justice.

Justice should not be rendered based on the suffering of the victims and their families but according to the crime commited against society. Too often, cries for justice are disguised as cries for vengeance.

 

[Daringly]

Go back to my list of "top executioners for 2007" and ask yourself why pretty much all so-called civilized nations on the planet have taken steps to abolish (totally or partially) the death penalty.

Or it could be that we live in a bleeding heart politically correct society where a small but loud group of people want to stand up for the people who do the crime and say fuck you to the victims of crime.

 

[JustBob]

Or it could be that we live in a bleeding heart politically correct society where a small but loud group of people want to stand up for the people who do the crime and say fuck you to the victims of crime.

Yes, for the last 50+ years, a small but loud group of bleeding heart liberals have slowly infiltrated democracies around the world and have conspired to abolish the death penalty. Now where's my pointy tin foil hat...

 

[eastender]

Two Points to Ponder

The brutality of the murder in Manitoba is magnified by its public nature in front of an audience.

In the mid 1990's a Montreal SW met a more horrific end in her east central apartment. The drugged client was caught, convicted and is in the Pinel Institute - local institution for the Not Criminally Responsible.

This brings us to the second point, the incarceration of NCR murderers.
Basically they are warehoused and studied by professionals in various related fields with the hope that the resulting data bank will further understanding and prevention of future crimes.

 

[Daringly]

Yes, for the last 50+ years, a small but loud group of bleeding heart liberals have slowly infiltrated democracies around the world and have conspired to abolish the death penalty. Now where's my pointy tin foil hat...

One thing in common that pretty much all people have who are soft on crime is they have no problem with crime as long as it is happening to somebody else and not them and their family. I will say straight up that i don't want a murderer released and moving in next door to me. I will promise you neither do the bleeding hearts, they don't mind then being released and living next door to someone else just don't move in next to them.

 

[Regular Guy]

Conundrum

The death penalty is mostly about revenge, it's an eye for an eye, it's people out for blood, and it has little to nothing to do with justice, and certainly has nothing to do with instilling "morals and ethics" in society.

Go back to my list of "top executioners for 2007" and ask yourself why pretty much all so-called civilized nations on the planet have taken steps to abolish (totally or partially) the death penalty. Because governments should not be in the business of executing their own citizens. THAT cheapens life. THAT sets a bad example. You're going to tell citizens that it's not ok to solve problems by killing people and you're going to turn around and do exactly that? Nice lesson in morals and ethics...

Well then my friend, you are in a catch 22. You can't have it both ways. The conclusion is inescapable. I thought I made that clear. Every time you try, sentence, rehabilitate (supposedly), release, watch another horrific act by this monster you are making a statement to all in society who are watching about the regard in which you hold human life. Actions speak louder than words. This kind of thing will always find its lowest common denominator. We have seen this kind of thing in other areas of our criminal justice system. We tried the "enlightened" approach with the youth criminal justice system until we found the drug dealers using the young of our society as couriers because they were virtually immune from consequences. At present we have seen the blind alley that our own hubris led us down with the youth criminal justice system to the point where we must go back and repair the damage legislatively. But you are right many of the societies in our global village are evolving, in many areas to make us stronger as people. Decisions made on a global scale are not infallible however as has been shown with the Global Warming doctrine. I am not going to get into a verbal byplay here which seems the way this discussion is heading but I say again that an argument should stand on its own merits not based on hopping onto some global bandwagon.

 

[korbel]

Or it could be that we live in a bleeding heart politically correct society where a small but loud group of people want to stand up for the people who do the crime and say fuck you to the victims of crime.

Hello Daringly,

It's always disturbing to me that so many insist there are only two sides to an issue and that both sides tend to paint the other in extremes. What you describe is a cartoon caricature far from the truth. Some people simply believe that all life is sacred. So it's funny that you color these people as "bleeding heart liberals". They only want to protect life. It may be repulsive to you that these lives are murderers, but their defenders just don't see the crime as nullifying the right of every individual to life...as strange as that may seem to you. And this sure isn't a slam at the rights of the victim to life. It moral consistency in it's own way. What I find stranger is how those on the other side of the issue bemoan the evils of abortion, but insist on capital punishment. Then there are the most extreme of the right to life side who are willing to kill doctors and medical personnel to prevent abortion. It's a very strange ethical contortion to be so protective of life based on some doctrinal morality, then to rationalize ending it so vehemently based on the same doctrine.

One thing in common that pretty much all people have who are soft on crime is they have no problem with crime as long as it is happening to somebody else and not them and their family. I will say straight up that i don't want a murderer released and moving in next door to me. I will promise you neither do the bleeding hearts, they don't mind then being released and living next door to someone else just don't move in next to them.

Now read this again to yourself Daringly. This is unworthy of you. You are basically saying those who oppose the death penalty have accepted the criminal mind as a matter of course, and like hard criminals their only morality is self-interest. Come on now...silly.

Cheers,

Korbel

 

[JustBob]

But you are right many of the societies in our global village are evolving, in many areas to make us stronger as people. Decisions made on a global scale are not infallible however as has been shown with the Global Warming doctrine. I am not going to get into a verbal byplay here which seems the way this discussion is heading but I say again that an argument should stand on its own merits not based on hopping onto some global bandwagon.

The Global Warming doctrine is only a few years old. The anti-death penalty movement is close to a century old if you look at the history of the death penalty. The pros/cons, morals, ethics have been weighed, discussed and analyzed and the overwhelming majority of democratic nations (except for the US) have determined that the arguments against the death penalty far outweigh any potential benefits. These arguments do stand on their own, they have existed for decades. So reducing this to "hopping onto some global bandwagon", is just a silly red herring.

 

[EagerBeaver]

The pros/cons, morals, ethics have been weighed, discussed and analyzed and the overwhelming majority of democratic nations (except for the US) have determined that the arguments against the death penalty far outweigh any potential benefits.

Not really an accurate statement since 13 states in the USA do not even have death penalty statutes (Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, Iowa, Massachussetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, plus DC). Of the ones who do, 3 have not implemented it since the US Supreme Court lifted the ban in 1976. Those states are Kansas, New York and New Hampshire. 6 other death penalty statute states, including Connecticut, have executed 1 person each since 1976.

The US Supreme Court has banned the death penalty for rape in Coker v. Georgia and, effectively, for any crime other than murder since 1977. This law was recently upheld and all current death row inmates in the USA are convicted murderers.

In China, the death penalty is meted out all the time for accepting bribes and lesser crimes. Example:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/03/china.toilet/index.html

In Iraq, Iran, Indonesia and other countries, drug dealers are routinely executed.

 

[Daringly]

Korbel,

My views on someone like Li is clear, i want him put to death and not be able to be let out of prison and move in next to me, to my parents, next to you or anybody else.

Now this is a hypothetical situation buts lets say if you had the power to make this decision that this guy is put to death or he gets released to move in next to your elderly parents. Answer it honestly, what are you going to do now. I can say with certainty what i would do, can you. If you can't then you may not be against the death penalty as much as you say you are. If you answered this honestly you would fry him.

 

[Techman]

Hello Daringly,

It's always disturbing to me that so many insist there are only two sides to an issue and that both sides tend to paint the other in extremes. What you describe is a cartoon caricature far from the truth. Some people simply believe that all life is sacred. So it's funny that you color these people as "bleeding heart liberals". They only want to protect life. It may be repulsive to you that these lives are murderers, but their defenders just don't see the crime as nullifying the right of every individual to life...as strange as that may seem to you. And he sure isn't a slam at the rights of the victim to life. It moral consistency in it's own way. What I find stranger is how those on the other side of the issue bemoan the evils of abortion, but insist on capital punishment. Then there are the most extreme of the right to life side who are willing to kill doctors and medical personnel to prevent abortion. It's a very strange ethical contortion to be so protective of life based on some doctrinal morality, then to rationalize ending it so vehemently based on the same doctrine....




Cheers,

Korbel

Where does this right to life come from? And who says that someone who takes a life in a criminal act does not forfeit that right? I have no problem with a woman's right to have an abortion and I am also in favour of the death penalty in cases where there is no doubt of guilt. So where do I fit in your equation?

I will say it again, I do not look at capitol punishment as punishment or as revenge or retribution. I look at it as prevention. Prevention in that the killer will never kill again.

You speak of rights, well the victim no longer has rights, no longer has life. What about his or her right to live? Why should the rest of society live with the possibility that the killer may one day be able to walk the streets a free man and maybe remove one of their rights to life?

 

[korbel]

Korbel,

My views on someone like Li is clear, i want him put to death and not be able to be let out of prison and move in next to me, to my parents, next to you or anybody else.

Now this is a hypothetical situation buts lets say if you had the power to make this decision that this guy is put to death or he gets released to move in next to your elderly parents. Answer it honestly, what are you going to do now. I can say with certainty what i would do, can you. If you can't then you make not be against the death penalty as much as you say you are. If you answered this honestly you would fry him.

Hello Daringly,

First, I have noted my views from the gut on this guy's crime very precisely and they are anything but "soft", except that I am ambivalent about the death penalty. I did say: "if anyone deserves it he does."

Now...the way you pose the question presupposes that the only choices we are stuck with are death or freedom. You know perfectly well this is also beneath an intelligent person like you. This is the kind of question posed by politicians looking to force people to their side by making the alternative unbearable. I have missed a few posts hear today, but I have not read anyone who remotely suggested he should get off free. I have read many very intelligent posts by you and I look forward to many more, but I am a bit surprised you would pose this sort of silly phony choice question. You know very well there are many more alternatives than the two you offer.

Cheers,

Korbel

 

[Daringly]

Why should the rest of society live with the possibility that the killer may one day be able to walk the streets a free man and maybe remove one of their rights to life?

We have to remember that bleeding hearts have no problem with the likes of someone like Li being released as long as they don't move in next to them or one of their family members

 

[korbel]

You speak of rights, well the victim no longer has rights, no longer has life. What about his or her right to live? Why should the rest of society live with the possibility that the killer may one day be able to walk the streets a free man and maybe remove one of their rights to life?

Well T,

Another person who says that any inference to right to life ignores the right of the victim to his/her lost life. You are projecting implications I never made and you know it.

Now, it's not me who created any possibility that a killer could some day walk the streets. And if you read my posts at the beginning you would have seen I said lock him in a deep hole permanently. So there is no relevance to the specter of a killer roaming free some day to anything I said.

We have to remember that bleeding hearts have no problem with the likes of someone like Li being released as long as they don't move in next to them or one of their family members

Clearly you intend to persist in cheap cartoonish stereotypes and specters of hardcore killer's pulling up a seat next to someone's children. This is nothing more than silly politicization of the issue. Thanks Pat Daringly Robertson.

Bullcrap,

Korbel

 

[Daringly]

Korbel,

We know the majority of killers are going to get released at some point in time, i would not want them moving in next to me, so if i feel that way how could i possibly want them released so they can move in next to somebody else.

Like Techman i to feel that this is not only about punishment but it is also about prevention. Will the death penalty stop the next guy from killing, maybe,maybe not but it will ensure somebody like Li will never kill again.

 

[Regular Guy]

The Global Warming doctrine is only a few years old. The anti-death penalty movement is close to a century old if you look at the history of the death penalty. The pros/cons, morals, ethics have been weighed, discussed and analyzed and the overwhelming majority of democratic nations (except for the US) have determined that the arguments against the death penalty far outweigh any potential benefits. These arguments do stand on their own, they have existed for decades. So reducing this to "hopping onto some global bandwagon", is just a silly red herring.

The facts described by EB would seem to question your assertions. This is one of the reasons I mentioned that an argument should stand on its own merits. Far from being a red herring let's just dispense with the "everyone's doing it" approach and deal with the issue. This issue is going to be controversial for some time based on the contradiction I described previously. So putting it forth as a fait accompli I would seriously question. Sloughing it off with a wave of the hand, as a "silly red herring" is not going to make it so.

 

[korbel]

Korbel,

We know the majority of killers are going to get released at some point in time, i would not want them moving in next to me, so if i feel that way how could i possibly want them released so they can move in next to somebody else.

Like Techman i to feel that this is not only about punishment but it is also about prevention. Will the death penalty stop the next guy from killing, maybe,maybe not but it will ensure somebody like Li will never kill again.

Hello Daringly,

That's fine. But offering these politicized specters is not keeping it real in this case. If Canadian law is so lenient and law enforcement is so soft that they won't even charge this guy with 1st degree murder for this hideous act then I suggest Canadians do something about the law and their chicken shit officials. Even in Massachusetts with no death penalty he would most likely get life without parole. I doubt this this guy in this case would ever be allowed to walk the streets almost anywhere in the U.S. for this particular act unless he was declared clinically insane. And even then...

Really,

korbel

 

[Daringly]

Hello Daringly,

That's fine. But offering these politicized specters is not keeping it real in this case. If Canadian law is so lenient and law enforcement is so soft that they won't even charge this guy with 1st degree murder for this hideous act then I suggest Canadians do something about the law and their chicken shit officials. Even in Massachusetts with no death penalty he would most likely get life without parole. I doubt this this guy in this case would ever be allowed to walk the streets almost anywhere in the U.S. for this particular act unless he was declared clinically insane. And even then...

Really,

korbel

We have found some common ground i do agree the law is far to soft, it not only needs to be toughned up for murder, but for break and enter and just about every other crime on the books. I for one am sick of this turn the other cheek bullshit

 

[Dee]

Some warm fuzzy Sunday evening reading from the Lone Star State:

Death Row Facts

The Polunsky Unit houses death row offenders separately in single-person cells measuring 60 square feet, with each cell having a window. Death row offenders are also recreated individually. Offenders on death row receive a regular diet, have access to reading, writing, and legal materials. Depending upon their custody level, some death row offenders are allowed to have a radio.



Offenders on death row do not have regular TDCJ-ID numbers, but have special death row numbers.


State of Texas executed brothers on six occasions:

• Frank & Lorenzo Noel electrocuted 7/3/1925;
• S.A. & Forest Robins electrocuted 4/6/1926;
• Oscar & Mack Brown electrocuted 7/1/1936;
• Roscoe & Henderson Brown electrocuted 5/6/1938;
• Curtis 7/1/1993 & Danny 7/30/1993 Harris (both by lethal injection);
• Jessie 9/16/1994 & Jose 11/18/1999 Gutierrez (both by lethal injection).

Effective January 12, 1996, close relatives and friends of the deceased victim were allowed to witness executions.
Texas Capital Offenses:

The following crimes are Capital Murder in Texas:

• murder of a public safety officer or firefighter;
• murder during the commission of kidnapping, burglary, robbery, aggravated sexual assault, arson, or obstruction or retaliation;
• murder for remuneration;
• murder during prison escape;
• murder of a correctional employee;
• murder by a state prison inmate who is serving a life sentence for any of five offenses (murder, capital murder, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault, or aggravated robbery);
• multiple murders;
• murder of an individual under six years of age.

United States Capital Punishment:

As of December 31,1999, the death penalty was authorized by 38 states and the Federal Government.


Texas leads nation in the number of executions since death penalty was reinstated in 1976.


Texas, California, and Florida have the largest death row populations.


3,254 offenders were under sentence of death in the United States as of December 31, 2005.


There are five methods of execution in the United States: lethal injection, electrocution, lethal gas, hanging, and firing squad.


Jurisdictions without death penalty statutes: Alaska, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cp.htm
Lethal Injection Consists Of:

• Sodium Thiopental (lethal dose - sedates person)
• Pancuronium Bromide (muscle relaxant-collapses diaphragm and lungs)
• Potassium Chloride (stops heart beat)
• The offender is usually pronounced dead approximately 7 minutes after the lethal injection begins.

Cost per execution for drugs used : $86.08
Average Time on Death Row prior to Execution:

10.26 years