Death row final statements

Fuzz said:
No clearly not!!
13 counts of aggravated kidnapping with a deadly weapon,
4 counts of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon,
1 count of burglary of a habitation
Robbed a store at gunpoint where A police officer was murdered outside..

Inject inject inject!!
Click to expand...

In the records of all of those 3 people who were sentenced to death it does not say who was found guilty of shooting the police officer, just that an officer was shot and killed.
 
opstrat said:
that is some difference in figures.

why do they wait so long on "death row"? i would have thaught it was against human rights to tell someone "we are going to kill but you wont know when"
Click to expand...

Interesting read on the guy that spent the longest on Death Row (31 years)
Obviously this is or was a support site/ biased but interesting none the less.
http://letdavidlive.org/

Also some interesting facts from the Death Row site.
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/death_row/dr_facts.html

Average time spent on Death Row before execution = 10.60 years
 
Last edited:
Fire_fly said:
In the records of all of those 3 people who were sentenced to death it does not say who was found guilty of shooting the police officer, just that an officer was shot and killed.
Click to expand...

I cba'd to read the whole thread, not sure specifically which case you're referring to but in the states(and in many other places in the world) if three people rob a bank, and one person murders someone they are all guilty of it, you took part in the crime that ended with a murder, that is all that happens.

What happens in a lot of murders is, when the cops don't know who is guilty they will often offer a deal to get a confession of the others, that includes say taking the death penalty off the table or going for a reduced crime if they give up the name of the person who actually shot whoever got killed.

So in most cases, legally it won't matter who actually shot the gun, if someone has a heart attack as a result of you mugging them, you'd likely be guilty of manslaughter. You're responsible for the result of your crimes, even if you aren't directly involved in that part of it.
 
George Hincapie said:
Shame the offenders didn't show their victims that level of humanity. Perhaps they wouldn't find themselves in that position.
Click to expand...
And so to demonstrate our collectively greater sense of humanity, we do exactly to them as they so heinously did to others. I don't buy it. It sets a moral standard that killing is acceptable in anything but defence - the very standard that sets many of the killings in motion in the first place.
 
Cloudstomp said:
People with your view frighten me really. Essentially you're saying that you're not satisfied without death. People that wish for death on other people are not right.
I also hold the opposite view with regards to 'punishment'. Someone that is locked away for a long long time has to reflect on what they've done. Death just gives them a quick and easy way out.

Very bizzare are the people that seem to get excited about execution. There always seems to be an angry mob style lynching mentality about it. I can't point at specific people but these threads always seem to bring out the Right wing oxygen thieves everytime.
Click to expand...

I don't believe murderers can be rehabilitated. I reject the notion that the tax payer should be burdened with the cost of their imprisonment. It's pretty black and white.
 
George Hincapie said:
I don't believe murderers can be rehabilitated. I reject the notion that the tax payer should be burdened with the cost of their imprisonment. It's pretty black and white.
Click to expand...

It's black and white if you shut your eyes and ignore the evidence that completely discounts your reactionary urges.

You are completely and totally wrong - but don't let the facts get in the way of your bloodlust.
 
Castiel said:
I have no idea what your position is.
Click to expand...

We've discussed it before, but to remind you, I am Pro-Death for murder.

But I'm neither concerned with the victim or the offender....I'm concerned with Justice. You are confusing justice with retribution and they are not the same.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not. If I was concerned with retribution then I'd be an advocate of a far more grisly end.

What I find bizarre (as well as difficult to believe) is that you could slot whoever you liked, and the idea that War is State sanctioned murder is a nonsence as the use of deadly force doesn't constitute murder as murder is a legal term and it must be framed in a legal framework......killing is not necessarily Murder.
Click to expand...

Don't be flippant. I clearly didn't mean randomly, I meant within the framework of the ROE in which it's for me to make a judgement as to whether a threat exists and act accordingly.

As a Soldier or a Police Officer you are subject to the law as is anyone else and if you commit murder of an innocent (a non combatant) with intent then you are as liable to the law as you would be as a civilian (more so in some cases). If what you say has any validity then the civilian who defends themselves from a potentional murderer woud be a murderer themselves if they killed the person in self defence.....
Click to expand...

You've got completely the wrong end of the stick, See response above.

Homicide is not necessarily murder, it can be justified, as in Self Defence, War (State Self Defence), Policing and from a States perspective (and presumably yours) Capitial Punishment.
Click to expand...

War is not State Self Defence. If you're an invading force then the intent to kill is there at the outset. The difference between murder and manslaughter is intent. That's it.

I am also aware that personally if it were a member of my family victim to a murderer than nothing short of killing that person would ever be considered justice to me, however then I would be concerned with the victim and the offender rather than justice, and I would not want the State to kill them in any case, I would want to do that myself.
Click to expand...

I am at a loss to understand why death is not justice to you. Clearly some states in the US and a number of other countries around the World consider it to be so.

To me the State is required to act ethically and that taking someone's life should be a last resort, when all else has been exhausted, this includes War, we should not be going to War if there are alternatives, equally we should not be killing our citizens if there are viable alternatives. The State should never be about retribution and revenge, but about prevention and justice.
Click to expand...

I accept that's your position, but I don't accept that death is not justice. I think that for certain crimes it's an option. We did have the Death Penalty in the UK until the 60s, or whenever it was abolished.

Justice in the UK now is a joke. Too many soft sentences, too much consideration given to the offender and not enough to the victim.
 
The Halk said:
It's black and white if you shut your eyes and ignore the evidence that completely discounts your reactionary urges.

You are completely and totally wrong - but don't let the facts get in the way of your bloodlust.
Click to expand...

Wind your neck in before we fall out.

It is not for you to tell me that I am wrong, I've expressed my opinion and an opinion cannot be wrong. It's fine for you to disagree, but that's as far as it goes. Start getting personal and I'll RTM.
 
George Hincapie said:
Justice in the UK now is a joke. Too many soft sentences, too much consideration given to the offender and not enough to the victim.
Click to expand...

Justice in the UK now is a joke. No consideration for rehabilitation, too much interference by government to appeal to the populist masses, and victims are sometimes allowed an opinion.
 
George Hincapie said:
I don't believe murderers can be rehabilitated. I reject the notion that the tax payer should be burdened with the cost of their imprisonment. It's pretty black and white.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately Life is not black and white, and unless you are proposing summary execution the taxpayer is burdened more in states that have the death penalty than those that do not.

Not to mention that in the majority of cases murder is not premeditated and when it is it is predicated by the relationship of the offender and the victim and is unlikely to be repeated......a person who is predicated toward serial murder often has underlying mental health issues and then the question is do we kill people simply because they are mentally ill?
 
George Hincapie said:
Wind your neck in before we fall out.

It is not for you to tell me that I am wrong, I've expressed my opinion and an opinion cannot be wrong. It's fine for you to disagree, but that's as far as it goes. Start getting personal and I'll RTM.
Click to expand...

With your medieval thinking I don't want to fall in. You're factually wrong, it's not opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom