Nice.

Frankly, I don’t want to pay for them to live. Screw ‘em. I guess I’m not above them. You take a life…you die. Pretty simple in my book.

Sorry…not a very intelligent argument from me this time. I just want them dead. I don’t want my tax dollars going to fund their lives one extra moment.

Self-centered? Anti-Christian? Perhaps. I don’t really care.

Its easy to pull up Dahmer, Manson, and others and point to them as poster children for the death penalty. Again i ask, what purpose does it serve? “They deserved it?” Unless you have a personal stake in it, that has little but schadenfreude at its root. That’s schoolyard playground logic. I’m not above those emotions – if someone i loved was taken from me, i’m sure i would want whoever was responsible to pay, most likely with their life. But i would hope that i live in a society that realizes that the actions desired in a tornado of emotion and loss are not neccesarily the “right ones”.

Punishment should be used to deter, to isolate from society to prevent future crimes, and to rehabilitate. The death penalty only accomplishes one of those, and it can equally be accomplished by a life without parole sentence.

Regardless, he only reads what he wants to read. My issue is with appeal after endless appeal allowing those who are guilty with certainty to continue to live at the expense of justice.

I guess Ragnar has been tired of being called a communist, etc. that he felt he finally had an opening to attack me.

Jeremy….hundreds? Please, back that up with a source.

Regardless, no one wants to see the innocent die. That’s why the measure should be imposed with ultimate discretion and certainty. I do believe we need to raise the threshold a bit when it comes to sentencing, because, you’re right, there are some cases where those found guilty have been found innocent with new evidence.

But let’s get to grassroots here — humans are fallible and mistakes are made even in justice. But, by far, we’re right more than we’re wrong. When we’re right, especially in cases like Malvo, Dahmer, Manson, etc., capital punishment is too good for them.

And then there are others, where the act they committed was brutal, such as the case of Edward Bell, who in cold-blood shot Officer Timbrook in the face, who gets to wait over a decade. Gets to, as Kerry Dougherty writes today, the opportunity to “chow down on a last meal…say goodbye to his children…has seen his children!” not while his case gets appealed over and over…but now because we have a governor who thinks we ought to see if lethal injections are cruel and unusual.

What’s cruel and unusual is that a man who jumped out from behind a bush and shot a cop in cold blood because he was trying to stop a drug deal gets to live while the cop never had the opportunity to see his unborn child.

I repeat your own words to you and you want to call in the Kleenex truck to sop up your victimization tears.

When the Supreme Court hears an abortion case, I’ll be waiting for your whole-hearted support for a moratorium on all abortions as we wait for the Supreme Court’s opinion.

After all, a “civilized nation” wouldn’t be killing the unborn, would it?

This is the section of Jim’s response I found most concerning:

“I believe that the death penalty, provided we weren’t so receptive to appeal after endless appeal, could be far less costly if we just got on with it and did so in a fashion that just gets the job done and doesn’t think so much about the criminal’s rights… Quite frankly, a bullet to the head is probably too good for them.”

What you are all missing is that our nation – with one of the finest justice systems in the world, IS more concerned with the rights of the criminal than the victim. The reason is simple, we are NOT a totalitarain state. Our system strives to guarantee that we do justice, and not imprison or kill an innocent man. Our system has a mantra, better to free 100 guilty people than to imprison 1 innocent one.

If you think this is unfair, consider how you would feel if you were that one innocent person convicted of murder – and taken on Jim’s direct path to a courtyard execution with a 9mm.

The Founding Fathers’ realized how imperfect a justice system can be, which is why they led the way in the 18th Century by creating a Bill of Rights – which gave the defendants rights.

I understand where you are coming from when you talk about victims and their families. But, we need to strive to be civilized, to be a nation of laws first, and to be better than our base insticts for vengence – which an appeal to victims’ rights can be a cover for – if we are to be that shining city on a hill.

PS – Just in case I haven’t been clear, I am not saying that the Constitution or the Bill of Rights prevents the death penalty. I believe that the Founders’ original intent was to allow for the death penalty – of course to do so on a federal system where some states elect to have it and others do not.

The question here is not whether supreme justice, as BK puts it, is legal under that document, but rather the manner through which it is carried out. Lethal injection, with some modifications, may be the most humane. But, that is for the Supremes to decide – which is why it is appropriate for any governor to wait for the SC’s decision prior to continuing to sign death warrants.

Ragnar, don’t attack Jim’s character. Favoring supreme justice does not mean Jim is “base” or opposes even having trials at all.

When someone murders a police officer in cold blood and gets to lie back in 10 years of appeals and have the Governor act to keep him breathing even longer while his family misses their husband and father that this savage ruthlessly killed, to me THAT’S cruel and unusual.

Do you want to strive to be a civilized nation – one that the Founding Fathers’ would be proud of, or do you want to countanance to our most base instincts as human beings? If you want the later, then why even bother with a trial?

I’ve actually sent people to jail, and I will tell you that I never did so with revenge in my heart – did I think that some of what these criminals did was evil? Of course, but that isn’t for me to decide. My job was to carry out justice as enshrined in our law. Not to seek revenge, not to punish with vengence in my heart, but only to seek justice.

If you are ever accused, falsely or otherwise, of a crime – pray that it is a justice system built on the law, and not on vengance that you are confronted with.

This comment has only tangetial bearing on the original thread, but i’m following it where its gone. I don’t know enough about the “cruel and unusual punishment” aspect to comment on it, so i’ll bypass that aspect. For me, the issue with the death penalty is the permanence of it. An error of judgement can be remedied, and although time cannot be returned liberty can. But life cannot – execution is the one punishment that cannot be reversed.

There are people on earth that I feel just don’t deserve to live…whether I am Christian or not.

Will I be judged on that belief? Of course. But you know what, and you’re right about the Old Testament, this is the same God that didn’t really seem to mind David killing Goliath, or an Amalekite servant, or Bathsheba’s husband…so I’ll take my chances.

Bottom line: I believe that the death penalty, provided we weren’t so receptive to appeal after endless appeal, could be far less costly if we just got on with it and did so in a fashion that just gets the job done and doesn’t think so much about the criminal’s rights.

It need not cost $2M if the day after the verdict the criminal was taken out to the courtyard and a 9mm was strategically placed in their cerebral cortex.

See, my friend, I care more about the rights of the victim’s family, the community, and the administering of justice.

Your opinion on this favors the criminal far too much for my tastes.

By the way, how is it cruel or torturous to put a bullet in someone’s brain? They did it to their victims. Or perhaps they cut their victims to pieces. Perhaps they’re the ones who sexually molested little girls until they are too weak, and then only do they strangle, burn, or stab them.

Quite frankly, a bullet to the head is probably too good for them.

Cruel and unusual meant to prevent torture…absolutely. But our founders never meant to take capital punishment off the table.

Benedict Arnold was hung. The conspirators of the Lincoln assassination were hung. And their are countless other less-known examples of justice being meted out.

Only recently has the left begun this mythology that capital punishment is cruel and unusual. And it’s only cruel and unusual in their land of sugar plum fairies.

We’re not talking crucifixion here. And, I deeply resent you for comparing what we’re talking about to the brutality of crucifixion. No one is advocating that and it doesn’t compare. A multi-hour (day?) asphyxiation, frequently only accomplished by the breaking of legs, and including dehydration and starvation, is not the method of punishment we’re talking about.

We’re talking about brutal criminals MAYBE experiencing a couple minutes of agony. In my opinion, if that happens, I don’t care. They deserve it.

I got news for you — there’s no good way to kill anyone. I’m sure with every form of death, a good attorney will find examples of horrendous and painful journeys to the afterlife. So if lethal injection is so bad…even though most of these criminals are probably used to using needles to begin with…then let’s go back to what we know is quick and works — a bullet. And if it didn’t work the first time. Shoot again. It’ll all be over in the time it takes to re-cock.

Second, there is nothing cheap about the death penatly – average costs to execute someone are north of $2,000,000. It is far cheaper to imprison someone for life.

Thirdly, how can you, endorse torturous deaths? For me, it goes against every tenent of Christianity – and particularly when you consider the manner through which Christ was killed. But, I realize others prefer the Old Testament when it comes to capital punishment.

Fourthly, there is a reason that the Founding Fathers created the 8th Amendment – it was to prevent the kind of torturing and torturous death you would seek to endorse. We can all learn from their example – it was a far more brutal world then, and look at the shining light of civilization they created with the Consitution and the Bill of Rights. Shouldn’t we strive to embarce their original intent?

Findally, as for your last point, duh. We are judged NOT by how we treat the best in our society – or our friends – but by how we treat the criminals and our enemies. We are all diminished – and we shall all be judged for our actions.

IMO, cruel and unusual doesn’t mean “don’t cause pain.” Perhaps in our tortured legal world it has come to that, but, for me, it is pretty simple…I’d be satisfied if we executed people the old fashioned way…with a bullet or noose. Far cheaper…far quicker.

It’s cruel and unusual for the victim’s family, taxpayer, the community, etc. to have endless legal battles for 95% of the animals that are out there that don’t deserve a second chance in society.