[ionia23]

I am opposed to the death penalty, but for different reasons than the average bleeding-heart liberal would:

1. There is no system of accountability in place for when the executed are exonerated.  I have not a clue how that would work.

2. The method of execution is far too kind.  Lethal injection?  Please....bring back the gas chamber.

Yes, I realize the two rules don't exactly work together.  I never claimed to be rational.

I didn't want them to kill him.  I wanted him to live a long life in Pelican Bay.  He's a piece of garbage.

Lots of celebrities backed him.  But did you see ANY of them come to the side of the relatives of his victims?  Noo.

I'd be all for abolishing the death penalty if it could be replaced with "Death Of Person".  24/7 solitary confinement.  The only visitors permitted are clergy, legal, and the occasional Human Rights group to ensure you are still alive.  Through plexiglass.  No reading material.  No writing material.  No television.  No nothing.  period.  finis.

You wanted your life?  Here it is, such as it is.

[Stealth]

2. The method of execution is far too kind.  Lethal injection?  Please....bring back the gas chamber.

they spent 12 minutes finding a vein LOL. actually i'm not in it for "how much pain they face when they die".  i think there's a difference coming home, finding your wife sleeping with another man, and in a fit of rage killing him, vs. being a serial killer and raping and murdering dozens of women over the years.  obviously they're different types of murders, and different types of criminals, and so therefore rather than have different types of deaths for each, i think it's best to keep them consistent, and as painless as possible.

[Stealth]

did you hear what some witnesses to his trial said?  they said he described what one of the victims sounded like when he shot him.  said he sounded like a dog.  then he laughed for 5 minutes.

doesn't sound too innocent to me. 

[Jetmech Jr.]

Source?

[Nuke]

shoot em all and let god sort them out

btw, i dont believe in god

edit:
hey didnt they make a movie on this guy?

[Stealth]

Source?

hmmmmmmmmmmm let me find it real quick

EDIT:  i read it on MSN, but here you go:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=williams+You+should+have+heard+the+way+he+sounded+when+I+shot+&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&fl=0&x=wrt

[aldo_14]

Source?

hmmmmmmmmmmm let me find it real quick

EDIT: i read it on MSN, but here you go:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=williams+You+should+have+heard+the+way+he+sounded+when+I+shot+&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&fl=0&x=wrt

Worth noting that appears to be a witness statement (i.e. he said he said), so if there is/was any doubt about the reliability of witnesses (which would be the main reason for any doubt over the validity of the conviction, as I believe there was a lack of physical evidence), then that statement could be considered similarly in doubt.

Of course, no-one's really arguing against punishment, the question was really is it not better to have a former gang leader (someone who sadly commands a lot more respect than say the police or education authorities) preaching against gang violence?  LA spends millions per year on anti-gang initiatives, is $28,000 (approx) not good value in this context.

And in what way is life in jail 'letting him off'*, anyways? AFAIK he would never have been released.
*to paraphrase the general arguement against clemency

Incidentally, i'm quite amused at the concept of making execution painless.  As if that made it more humane - are murders treated less severely if the victim suffers less?

[Mefustae]

Incidentally, i'm quite amused at the concept of making execution painless. As if that made it more humane - are murders treated less severely if the victim suffers less?

Yes, you can dodge a 'torture' charge, the addition of which would really make a jury turn against you.

[aldo_14]

Incidentally, i'm quite amused at the concept of making execution painless. As if that made it more humane - are murders treated less severely if the victim suffers less?

Yes, you can dodge a 'torture' charge, the addition of which would really make a jury turn against you.

So murderers can be given a reduced sentence if the victim doesn't suffer?  As in if you shot someone in the head, rather than in the throat, you get less jail time?  Or decapitating an unconscious person automatically has a lesser sentance than doing same to a conscious person?

Because torture is an entirely seperate charge to murder, after all.  It refers to an prolonged act of, lacking a better term, causing pain rather than the singular act of taking someones life.  That's why it's an additional charge; it goes beyond the length of time and scope applicable to a murder charge.

And, ultimately, murder is still murder.  It is the most inhumane crime possible (based on its legal standing and punishment), not due to the suffering endured but by the consequence of taking a life, so how having the method used be 'painless' suddenly make it humane?

[Jetmech Jr.]

The Death Penalty is not murder. You need to understand that before you can properly debate this.

[Flipside]

It depends, when the person is killed for a crime, then it is classed as execution, but what happens if it turns out later that he did not actually commit said crime? That makes it the pre-planned killing of an innocent man.

Whether execution is murder or not is very much a personal thing I feel, we can get into 'letter of the law', but at the same time, it's like opinions of the Japanese killing the Whales, or Seal Culling, or Cane Toad culling, it really depends on your point of view. The Japanese find Whalemeat useful, the Seal Cull was believed by a large number of people to be unpleasant but very neccesary, same with Cane Toads, only more so, those things are a true menace.

All of them, like execution, are considered a neccesary removal of life, but where does neccesity end and murder start?

[crowd]oooooh![/crowd]

[Polpolion]

He deserved it!

JK!! 

[an0n]

Execution is not murder - as the person has tacitly approved of the fact that they're going to be killed by committing a crime for which they know they'll be executed.

It's the equivelant of stepping out into traffic. At best, it's suicide and/or bad, high-stakes gambling.

[Mefustae]

But what if the person has not committed the crime? There have been countless cases of wrongful executions before, and would you not classify the killing of an innocent person murder? And yet, the people responsible for the death of that innocent person (ie. Jury, Judge, etc.) do not recieve any punishment! Where is the justice in that?!

I mean, taking your analogy, it's like a speeding car swerving to avoid a dog and hitting someone, and then the dog taking 100% of the blame...

[an0n]

Then it's tough ****.

If a few innocent people have to die in order for human civilization to survive, then so be it.

And yes, that is morally justifiable. It's basically the same principle as conscription.

[Mefustae]

Fine, but you've got to admit that the Death Penalty really doesn't work. In the US, it essentially works under the guise that there is indeed a 'hell' after death, and killing them is a suitable punishment because they'll be sent there. But the fact is, killing someone painlessly for committing a crime is essentially letting them off, as i'd think that life in prison would be a hell of a lot worse than simply dying.

The only way to remedy this is to either do away with the whole thing and bring in something like what was mentioned earlier; a small white room with no human contact for the rest of his or her miserable life, or beef up the death penalty to encompass everything down to assault (I actually like this option). Honestly, it would no longer make for over-crowded prisons, it'd act as a REAL deterrant, and you can make protesting the death penalty a crime punishable by the death penalty (oh, the irony!) to minimise complaints. Honestly, I see it working quite well.

[Kosh]

Fine, but you've got to admit that the Death Penalty really doesn't work.

If it did work, then you wouldn't need to use it. But Texas uses it all the time, so therefore it doesn't work.

[aldo_14]

The Death Penalty is not murder. You need to understand that before you can properly debate this.

Why?  The primary arguement against the Death Penalty is that it is murder.

It is the premeditated, planned and calculated taking of the life of an individual human being, the only difference is that it's state sponsored.  (not even the motive is unusual - revenge killings are scarcely unheard of, and given that the individual is already incarcerated it's really mainly to save money on jailing costs).

 And when said individual is shown after the fact to be innocent - perhaps due to new evidence, or unsafe convictions (IIRC a legal study discovered a shocking percentage of convictions to be unsafe on Death Row, including of people who were mentally ill*), then it is unquestionably the same as murder.

*not in the sense of innocent by mental defect, but incapable of comprehending the legal system and the charges against them, and thus being able to be co-erced into guilty or incriminating statements.

[Clave]

Nope, the death penalty is state-sponsored punishment...

It seems to me that the system is screwed up.

If you are guilty and show no remorse, then you should suffer the removal of your life as soon as possible, NOT be locked up for 20 years while people dither around and such.

Personally, I won't be shedding any tears because some scumbag got topped..

[Jetmech Jr.]

Murder-the unlawful taking of anothers life.

The very fact that the Death Penalty is state-sponsored and legal means it is not murder.