Chicago Tribune
Do you think that
A) He should get life sentence, death penalty is bad.
B) He should get the death penalty.
C) He shouldn't get lethal injection, they should tie him to an anchor and throw him over.
I vote C. And don't give him a dozen appeals and keep him alive on taxpayer money for 30 years.
inb4lock
Yeah, you're cool
But if I found that there was no question about the guilt in the case, then yes, death penalty. No reason to make it cruel though. Once you make the punishment cruel, you aren't looking for justice, you're looking for vengeance.
I vote D: Drunk fullblade-wielding half-orc barbarian.
Yup, you're cool.
But if I found that there was no question about the guilt in the case, then yes, death penalty. No reason to make it cruel though. Once you make the punishment cruel, you aren't looking for justice, you're looking for vengeance.
True. And really, the death penalty is just an extradition. It just makes me angry/sad that any human being can do that to another.
Oh, and I'm in before lock.
Henderson was convicted in 2006 of murder and murder for financial gain and was sentenced to two terms of life in prison without parole.
Why is it that your all outraged at the guy, and want to give him a painfully poetic death via drowning but his wife, who was just as involved as he was, well, your all happy with her simply getting life in prison?
Am I in before the lock? It seems like the cool thing these days.
I love the idea that tying him to an anchor somehow makes us all feel better rather than, "Wow. I just tied some guy to an anchor and made him die slow and painfully." This isn't a Mel Gibson movie.
Am I in before the lock? It seems like the cool thing these days.
We don't do it to make ourselves feel better. Poetic justice can often keep people from doing these horrible things, because they've gotten used to the idea that our justice system won't do **** to properly punish someone.
It would make them think "Wait, what if this happened to ME?"
It would have a good chance of keeping them from acting on their urges. Fear does all sorts of things to the mind.
We don't do it to make ourselves feel better. Poetic justice can often keep people from doing these horrible things, because they've gotten used to the idea that our justice system won't do **** to properly punish someone.
It would make them think "Wait, what if this happened to ME?"
It would have a good chance of keeping them from acting on their urges. Fear does all sorts of things to the mind.
Strange. The idea that someone might chain you to an anchor for chaining someone else to an anchor utterly failed to keep most of the posters in this thread from offering to chain someone to an anchor.
---------------------------------
Only men benifit from the fear of a bad death when it come to curbing bad behavior?
--------------------------
Unfortunately, a lot of people don't do good to be good, they do good because they're afraid of punishment.
And I think that the woman involved deserves the same punishment, too.
It's called punishing the criminal, TA. You do understand the concept of execution/poetic justice, right?
Oh, so your saying poetic justice only should come into effect when the person who did the deed dosn't feel that the deed was unwaranted. Got it.
And I think that the woman involved deserves the same punishment, too.
Just, you know, not enough to say anything except when the double standard was specifically called out I guess.
It would have a good chance of keeping them from acting on their urges. Fear does all sorts of things to the mind.
Not really... capital punishment only works as a deterrent when it's used often. Not just for the heinous murders, but for all of them. Not to mention that to really be effective as a deterrent it has to be highly publicized. I'm talking no dignity for the prisoner, nothing about privacy for the family, but doing it loudly, often, and in public.
Of course, if someone knows that they'll be killed like that if they're convicted of murder, that also makes them more likely to go out fighting to the last breath. If you're going to executed for killing one person, it's not like things are going to get any worse for taking down as many cops as you can, right?
@TA
Answer that pokes at psycholgoy (or at least pretends to): Well, part of it is that people don't like giving harsh sentences to women. Because if they assign the death penalty to one woman, then that opens up the idea that women are just as capable as men of horrid things. No, much better to give the woman a lighter sentence then the man and pretend that he was the real culprit, and she's just an 'accomplice' (doesn't 'accomplice' sound so much better then 'associate murderer?') and not a murderer.
Bitter sarcastic response: Oh yeah, give the woman the death penalty. After all, she's the one that did it. Oh wait, she was just an accomplice. Geesh, can't you tell the difference?
Generically angry response: Who the heck are you to question us? Can't you see that this man deserves vengeance, er I mean justice? He tied too poor innocent people to an anchor and drowned them. Can you think of anything worse? This man deserves to die a painful death! If anyone is deserving of the death penalty, it is this man! His wife? Eh, she's just a woman.
Hrm... I think I flopped on the bitter sarcastic response, and mixed in the self-righteous response with the generically angry response, but the psychological response seems pretty solid. I'm thinking 6/10, what do you think?
Oh, so your saying poetic justice only should come into effect when the person who did the deed dosn't feel that the deed was unwaranted. Got it.
Umm...can you re-phrase this? Anyways, when it comes to homocide (NOT self defense/defense of others, so don't even bother going there) I feel that murderers need to experience what they inflicted (but only if there is a willing person to inflict it on them. If not, then give them a quicker death)
I have no tolerance for murderers.
Just, you know, not enough to say anything except when the double standard was specifically called out I guess.
I just skimmed the article.
Umm...can you re-phrase this?
Why? Is the phrase "Did the deed" somehow problematic?
I misread it, don't worry 'bout it.
Oh. Did you read it as a thinly veiled attempt to call your philosophy hypocritical, or did you get some other meaning from it?
I am. *shrug*
I also tend to go into rage/rant mode when this kind of thing is brought up because I hate murderers.
I'm just a naturally honest person.
I also tend to go into rage/rant mode when this kind of thing is brought up because I hate murderers.
Jealous much?
An outcome in which virtue is rewarded and evil punished, often in an especially appropriate or ironic manner. For example, It was poetic justice for the known thief to go to jail for the one crime he didn't commit. [Early 1700s]
What you were referring to is eye-for-an-eye justice or mirrored punishment.
Just nitpicking
Oh, and INB4LOCK
And by mercy, in this case, I mean locking them in a dungeon until the end of their days. Not a prison, a dungeon.
If humanity wants to evolve, we must step outside our comfort zone. Our comfort zone at the moment being that it's okay to kill people, whether it's murder, war, or "justice."
If humanity wants to evolve, we must step outside our comfort zone. Our comfort zone at the moment being that it's okay to kill people, whether it's murder, war, or "justice."
But is is okay to kill some people. Henderson and Deleon have proven (as far as I know. I don't know what else went on, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the article left something out- not that I can think of many things small enough to be left out, but big enough to justify what they did) that they are of no use to society, and what's more important, they have relinquished their rights to be treated as human beings.
I don't for a second think they should executed in a similar fashion to their victims, but given the information I have both deserve death.
But it is okay to kill some people.
EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I agree that people like this should be removed from society. I just don't believe death is the Way.
Also, those calling for the lethal injection as "humane" should know it really isn't. They have done studies and have found that the pain killer given only lasts around 5 minutes, while it takes up to 12 minutes to die. The muscle relaxant used as well is horribly painful, a woman woke up during surgery with this muscle relaxant being used and it is said to feel like being on fire. So, as far as the evidence being presented so far, the "humane death" is actually around 7 minutes of feeling on fire before you die.
As a side note, I'm anti-death penalty on the basis of an imperfect system of justice, not because I think it's immoral or unethical.
Why is it that your all outraged at the guy, and want to give him a painfully poetic death via drowning but his wife, who was just as involved as he was, well, your all happy with her simply getting life in prison?
I'll need to see what the other three (male) accomplices get before I can answer that. If they get life in prison too, it's very simple: The one who physically threw the couple overboard (which seems to be the husband) is killed, and all the people who helped get life in prison, no different treatment. But if those guys get the death sentence too, and the wife doesn't, then it's likely a case of double standards.
Right now, it seems one of the male accomplices has avoided the murder charges, and instead pleaded guilty to 'accessory after the fact', whatever that means. Another has been declared guilty of murder, but still hasn't gotten his sentence, and the third is charged with murder but hasn't been convicted yet. So there's not much to go by.
'accessory after the fact', whatever that means.
"accessory after the fact" generally means the person was unaware the crime was being commited or was going to be commited, but helped the person after the crime was done. Generally by driving the getaway car, helping them hide out, or disposing of eviedence.
----------------------
Looking article agian:
The man and his wife planned it.
3 other men where on the boat.
One had the charges aginst him dropped after he testified that the others where on the boat, meaning his involvment was probably small.
The second had the murder charges droped after pleading guilty to acessory after the fact, meaning his involvment was probably small.
The third was convicted, and the jury has requested a death sentence.
Apparantly in Texas, if there are 3 credible witnesses to a crime taht is ruled death penalty, you die. No appeals or anything like that. Express lane.
I think those should be the ONLY time death penalties are enforced. Why? Because, and I am really not kidding here, it is cheaper to keep a criminal alive then put them to death normally.
The reason is appeals. The cost in court time, lawyers, juries, judges, stenographers, all lead to large amounts of time lost, and in most cases thats paid time from tax dollars.
It costs less to have them fed and sheltered for the rest of their lives.
A for me. While yes it can feel just to go with "an eye for an eye", hell it is even instinctual in us to seek out revenge. It isn't something that I believe a sophisticated culture should adopt, you can see around the world that more and more the death penalty is being abolished, even with the greater cost of housing prisoners. There is a reason for this.
What is this reason?
BTW, the idea of "sophisticated culture" is a construct of man. It can mean many, many things. None of which are necessarily right or wrong. It's a completely inaccurate measure to gauge behavior.
Also, those calling for the lethal injection as "humane" should know it really isn't. They have done studies and have found that the pain killer given only lasts around 5 minutes, while it takes up to 12 minutes to die. The muscle relaxant used as well is horribly painful, a woman woke up during surgery with this muscle relaxant being used and it is said to feel like being on fire. So, as far as the evidence being presented so far, the "humane death" is actually around 7 minutes of feeling on fire before you die.
So shoot them in the head with a large caliber weapon. They die. Quickly and guaranteed. Funny how in our quest for "more humane" methods of dispatching our unwanteds we've only made things worse on them, innit? ;) I also really don't care how badly it hurts. They didn't care about any fear or agony they caused their victim so I see no need to afford them any greater comfort. There's no need to get creative and replicate their crimes against them, but there's also no need to worry about 7 minutes of pain. They're going to be dead anyway.
I believe the death penalty should be really hard to get, but should be given express lane type treatment.
I disagree with that. The appeals process is there to prevent an innocent person being put to death.
What I do agree with is shortening the overly drawn-out period between sentencing and execution. When the sentence is laid out in court, a date should be set and that's carved in stone at that point. Appeal away, but you've got until that date comes.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for rehabilitation. But some sentences are so long that the person will never be more than a drain on the society whose rules they put themselves above. I also think the death penalty should be applied in repeat offender cases. A multiple conviction rapist or drug dealer has shown a wanton disregard for the rules of decent society and should be removed from it in such a way that will discourage others from following suit.
Also, those calling for the lethal injection as "humane" should know it really isn't.
The search for a humane execution is nonsense.
A hanging is supposed to snap the neck cleanly and death should be fairly instantaneous, assuming the neck breaks clean at the snap of the rope. A lethal injection takes 12 minutes or longer, depending on the individual. An electric chair sometimes cooks the individual instead of just shorting out their nervous system. Gassing causes convulsions, vomitting and thrashing about as the subject's body fights to breathe. Beheading is bloody and sometimes takes more than one stroke, assuming a guillotine isn't used.
The problem is that people in general are not inclined to violence and an execution is ending another's life. Society holds that life is sacred and the execution runs contrary to that. Killing another person, no matter how horrific their crime is still somewhat barbaric, but that barbarism is designed to demonstrate the consequences of action.
The search for a humane execution is nonsense.
A hanging is supposed to snap the neck cleanly and death should be fairly instantaneous, assuming the neck breaks clean at the snap of the rope. A lethal injection takes 12 minutes or longer, depending on the individual. An electric chair sometimes cooks the individual instead of just shorting out their nervous system. Gassing causes convulsions, vomitting and thrashing about as the subject's body fights to breathe. Beheading is bloody and sometimes takes more than one stroke, assuming a guillotine isn't used.
The problem is that people in general are not inclined to violence and an execution is ending another's life. Society holds that life is sacred and the execution runs contrary to that. Killing another person, no matter how horrific their crime is still somewhat barbaric, but that barbarism is designed to demonstrate the consequences of action.
I agree completely. My vote goes to hanging or the firing squad.
I agree completely. My vote goes to hanging or the firing squad.
Only if it's done publicly. Otherwise it will have no value. Keeping executions behind closed doors as they are doesn't allow them to act as a visible signal to the community as a whole that certain behaviours are unacceptable.
I know it's barbaric, but it doesn't work otherwise.
Hey now, if we wanted effective we would go back to public lashings, chopping off hands, and putting people in stocks (in public), as opposed to lengthy prison sentences.
Indentured servitude for thievery would be appropriate, with a judge ruling on the amount to be repaid and taking into account things like a minimum wage. Cutting off hands is extreme and removes the possibility of the thief reforming and becoming a valuable member of society.
Public lashings are extreme, but the humiliation of the stocks wouldn't be horribly out of line. The humiliation to friends and family would make some people think twice before flaunting the law.
However, I disagree with the other points: the point of the death penalty is, in my opinion, to remove an "incurable" individual from society at minimum risk & cost.
Public lashings are just a barbaric sort of public humiliation, and flouts one of our most important laws, the dignity of the individual. As a society, I daresay we have risen above such measures.
It pays for itself, keeps the murderers off the street, and lets them ply their particular trade for the betterment of society.
Still, I think public lashings would do a heck of a lot more to curb anti-social behavior then putting someone up in a prison for a few years. Especially for drug crimes and property crimes (which together make up about 40% of inmates). Really, the only people I think it's worth while to lock up are those that are actually dangerous and likely to hurt people. Someone who's only crime is using a non-state-approved mind-altering substance really doesn't need to be locked up.
As for public lashings being extreme... well, it is a bit draconian, but I'm of the opinion that physical punishment can work as a deterrant, and probably works better then just being locked up for a few months.
Of course, in order for draconian measures to really work as punishment we would probably want to streamline the justice system. Not much point of punishing someone with 50 lashes if they're going to sit in jail for five months waiting for a trial.
Didn't the murderer use to be a Power Ranger? I'm serious when I ask this, because I think I remember hearing about it in the news awhile ago.
Well then, he could very well rise through the ranks to become the top gladiator.
"GO GO Anchor Killer!!"
Eh, cutting off one hand doesn't make it impossible fro someone to be a valuable member of society. Of course, that might create a stigma against one handed people, and we don't want accident victims to bear a social stigma because criminals have a brand similar to their deformity. So I guess cutting off hands is out.
Still, I think public lashings would do a heck of a lot more to curb anti-social behavior then putting someone up in a prison for a few years. Especially for drug crimes and property crimes (which together make up about 40% of inmates). Really, the only people I think it's worth while to lock up are those that are actually dangerous and likely to hurt people. Someone who's only crime is using a non-state-approved mind-altering substance really doesn't need to be locked up.
As for public lashings being extreme... well, it is a bit draconian, but I'm of the opinion that physical punishment can work as a deterrant, and probably works better then just being locked up for a few months.
Of course, in order for draconian measures to really work as punishment we would probably want to streamline the justice system. Not much point of punishing someone with 50 lashes if they're going to sit in jail for five months waiting for a trial.
Issue whips to all the police forces. They can dish out punishment on the spot. Now hookers will really run from the police!
I disagree with that. The appeals process is there to prevent an innocent person being put to death.
What I do agree with is shortening the overly drawn-out period between sentencing and execution. When the sentence is laid out in court, a date should be set and that's carved in stone at that point. Appeal away, but you've got until that date comes.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for rehabilitation. But some sentences are so long that the person will never be more than a drain on the society whose rules they put themselves above. I also think the death penalty should be applied in repeat offender cases. A multiple conviction rapist or drug dealer has shown a wanton disregard for the rules of decent society and should be removed from it in such a way that will discourage others from following suit.
The problem I have with the above bolded words is that if drugs were legalized the system would have more money to deal with the crimes of a much more heinous nature.
Legalize drugs and the crime rate is automatically cut in half or more.
To the orginal poster, I could really care less how they die as long as they die.
Wonderella thinks drugs are bad.
The problem I have with the above bolded words is that if drugs were legalized the system would have more money to deal with the crimes of a much more heinous nature.
That would depend greatly on the drug in question, wouldn't it? Some are significantly more harmful than others. I don't use drugs, but some of the laws prohibiting their use are extreme. Others are harmful to the point that I consider people that traffic in them nothing more than vermin, willing to kill you for their profit.
We don't do it to make ourselves feel better. Poetic justice can often keep people from doing these horrible things, because they've gotten used to the idea that our justice system won't do **** to properly punish someone.
It would make them think "Wait, what if this happened to ME?"
It would have a good chance of keeping them from acting on their urges. Fear does all sorts of things to the mind.
Well, actually, deterance doesn't work.
I'm all for the death penalty. Probably the archor because it's cheaper than the needle (paradoxically so?).
I confess I haven't read the artcile though
. But I'll just assume it's bad ;). In before lock.That would depend greatly on the drug in question, wouldn't it? Some are significantly more harmful than others. I don't use drugs, but some of the laws prohibiting their use extreme. Others are harmful to the point that I consider people that traffic in them nothing more than vermin, willing to kill you for their profit.
Ah, but there is a market for those harmful drugs. Contrary to popular belief, drug dealers do not put guns to the heads of their customers and make them buy those drugs. It is done out of their own free will.
If pharmacutical companies can sell things that cause heart attacks, kidney failure, etc, etc. Then I have no problem with so called hard stuff sold by the friendly neighborhood dealer.
Still, I think public lashings would do a heck of a lot more to curb anti-social behavior then putting someone up in a prison for a few years.
Considering that in some circles prison time is a right of passage or status symbol, I have to agree.
Legalize drugs and the crime rate is automatically cut in half or more.
Well, we tried that once in the long-long ago. Hell, you could order a heroin kit from Sears. The problem was a huge portion of our lovely nation became drug addicts due to the lack of regulations on Opium (and other opiates), cocaine, etc. It was a real problem - not something imagined by people with an anti-drug agenda. We as a species have proven ourselves incapable of restraint where drugs are concerned.
Pot and other minor stuff would be fine to legalize, IMO (and I don't even use the stuff). The only reason it was banned was because of people with agendas. They lied blatantly about its dangers in order to see it and all drugs permanently excised from our culture. Some of the more interesting bits of propaganda were also incredibly racist. It was said that pot made black men so horny and violent that they couldn't stop themselves from raping and killing white women, for one. So, at the very least, the reasoning behind some of our drug policies should be re-evaluated. ;)
Even more fun when societies approval is based on legacy and emotional arguments, and not on rationality or logic.
Roughly 20% of the inmate population is made up of people there on drug charges. A small fraction of those are dealers. That's a lot of people in prison because society doesn't approve of their choice of mind-altering substance.
Even more fun when societies approval is based on legacy and emotional arguments, and not on rationality or logic.
Yep. And when one of our only remaining growth industries is - get this - pharmaseuticals, it seems even sillier to toss a guy in the clink for pot use while his granny is smokin' up legally or his li'l brother is jacked up on Ritalin.
Two words for you: Gladitorial Combat
It pays for itself, keeps the murderers off the street, and lets them ply their particular trade for the betterment of society.
I'd be happy with that. How much for admission, popcorn, and good seats?
Also, Inb4lock.
Legalize drugs and the crime rate is automatically cut in half or more.
Certain drugs should never be legal. A junkie is going to mug some one for drug money even if s/he can buy it from the local Drug Mart rather than from a shady dealer. To be fair, people commit crimes to get money for alcohol and pot, but those drugs are relatively harmless compared to heroin, meth, and crack.