It’d be pretty cheap too. Just loop a length of rope around their oxygen intake passage and slowly start constricting it. You could even use their own weight to pull it tight, if you fastened the other end to something fixed, like a tree branch.
As for the OP, I think he’s retarded for the assumption that the only reason Bush would OK an execution, is because he enjoys it. :rolleyes:
Well played, sir.
I don’t understand this thread. Why would you pit Bush for approving a death sentence, as opposed to any one of the hundreds of judges, jurors and prosecutors whose work put prisoners on death row?
Chalk up another one for the Merry Butcher. What’s Bush’s score now? 150? 160? I bet he’s more proud of his tally than most other things he’s done in public life. And, hey, if they’re retarded, that’s even more fun! Let’s hope he’s learned enough to not make fun of this guy when the cameras are rolling.
I’ve heard that filling their cell with nitrogen would be a very humane way to end their life. Since CO2 would not be building up in their body, they wouldn’t feel like they were being suffocated. Not that I’m in favor of the death penalty, regardless of how it’s administered.
Wait, but is this Gray fellow actually still considered active duty, or wouldn’t he have been tossed out of the service upon conviction? Or at least his last contract was up and he was discharged? This was 20 years ago, there’s plenty of vets in prison, some even on death row I’d think, and nobody thinks that they should be spared. I could see this being a story if this guy was active duty in Iraq or something but after rotting away in Kansas for 20 years let the bastard die.
I am in complete agreement with you (and to answer a question asked of you - I am a white male middle class church going libertarian conservative).
The system is far from perfect, so I don’t like the state taking a life. Even DNA evidence has significant enough issues in its application, serving mainly to esnure that someone is innocent but still having issues with truly proving guilt.
Me, too.
This is an absolute surrender to the impulse for vengeance. If we needed to kill this man to protect the populace, I’d see the point; as it is, we can safely secure him behind bars forever. Giving in to the bloodthirsty impulse to kill him is, quite simply wrong.
However, it is the law of the land. I wish it were not, because we demean ourselves when we sink to the level of the murderer to address the crimes of the murderer.
I’m against the death penalty, too, but this is one weak-ass reasons to pit Bush. The DP is the law of the land, and he was given that sentence legally, so there is no reason that Bush should commute that sentence. I doubt that any president would.
Thanks. Obviously I asked that because I have a sneaking suspicion that the judicial system is viewed quite differently from one racial group to another.
I would think that African Americans by and large proabbly have a pretty dim view of the US Court System, although maybe it’s the police they hate more.
You get faqirs with urination problems? Shit, the only thing I get posting at 3 AM are headaches! 
Thank you, Bricker. I am encouraged when there are issues on which we can agree.
The opportunity doesn’t coome along very often, but the last time it did, the president had the wisdom to commute the sentence:
It is the law of the land that a jury may impose the death penalty under these circumstances. It is also the law of the land that requires the president to sign the death warrant. There is no less justice served when the president exercises his perogative to commute a sentence. Under the law, the decision of the jury does not supercede that of the president. The law is served by whatever decision the president makes; it is my opinion that our country is diminished when he chooses death.
None taken. Just having trouble getting back to post here.
The short version is: Until the law changes I’m not going to decry what appears to be a valid conviction, with sentence carried out in accordance with the law.
Because of the systemic problems I see with the system I do want the law changed, even if that means that people whom I believe to be completely guilty will have their sentences commuted.
I hope that clarifies things for you. And if not, perhaps we should take this to PMs. I don’t know how much time I’ll be having for philosophy during my limited down time these days.
Uh…how come they keep finding innocent people on death row then? Over and over, multiple times? What’s your standard for “highly unlikely”?
Sailboat
Although certainly one would expect the ex-Gov of Texas to sign the warrant, and although one can make a good case that no crime deserves the DP; this is such a heinous series of crimes that if any crime(s) did, it’d be this one. So, although I hate to say it- GWB gets a pass from me on this one.
It’s the law. If you don’t like the law, get it changed.
Sailboat The fact that they find innocent men on Death Row can be taken to mean that the system works- that there are checks and balances after conviction.
There are few if any solid cases of an executed man being shown to be innocent.
Indeed. It certainly becomes a bit harder to re-try someone who is dead.
There are inumerable cases of corrupt cops, lawyers, judges and moronic juries. Thats more than enough for me to not want the people in charge to have the power over life and death.
I can’t say I am broken up about it. Mad dogs get put down.
As for the OP, I’m sorry, but this is just weak. Like it or not, it is the law of the land, the guy had 20 years for appeals and such and, as so many others have said, surely if anything is deserving of the death penalty, the crimes for which this guy was convicted. I strongly suspect this pit exists only because of the distaste the OP has for the man in question and, were it someone else, it would simply be a displeasure with the death penalty.
And since this has turned somewhat into a Death Penalty debate, I want to weigh in since I support it. As far as the problems with the system, corrupt cops, lawyers, judges and all that, while I don’t agree with it, I understand it. As such, I’m perfectly fine with appeals on death sentences taking as long as it doesn’t to help minimize the impact of this argument. Beyond that, I won’t bother to argue it, but there are two I just don’t get.
The first argument I have issue with is that sitting in a cell is worse punishment than just killing them if their motivation is to punish them more, or vice versa if they’re taking the more humane approach. I want to point out that the purpose of law, at least from my perspective, isn’t about revenge, it’s about justice. I don’t support the death penalty because I think it’s a harsher punishment or a more humane punishment, but simply because I believe it is the most just response.
To explain this point, I’ll put forth two premises upon which I base my position. First, IMO, the purpose of law is, first and foremost, to protect the rights of each person. Second, justice is about finding an equitable balance of a punishment for a crime (a violation of the rights of another), sort of like a modified “eye for an eye” or artificial karmic approach. That is, while it is just to give corporal punishment to someone who commits a violent crime, it isn’t in line with our modern sensibilities, so rather than give the direct “eye for an eye” punishment, we settle for what we, as a society, have decided is an equitable trade of a suitable amount of another right, in most most cases, this is freedom or property in the form of jail and/or fines. I agree with this approach because I do agree with the assessment that corporal punishment carries a large amount of vengence stigma and is unnecessarily barbaric.
The argument comes in because I hold one right to be immeasurably more valuable than any amount of any other simply because no other rights matter without it. Of course, I’m referencing the right to life. Because I believe it is immeasurably more valuable than any other right, I also believe that it is impossible to establish an equitable forfeiture of the convict’s other rights that will balance what he’s done. That is, I simply don’t believe that any amount of jail time ever comes close, and thus the only just action is death.
That said, my argument for it isn’t about being humane, but I do agree that any punishment should be humane. Just because a convict may have made his victims suffer doesn’t mean we have to stoop to that level to acheive justice. Thus, I do agree that people, of either side, saying he should suffer are acting more out of a sense of revenge than justice. This is why I favor more humane execution methods and, if it were possible to guarantee the convict would not even feel as much as a needle prick, I’d support that method over a less humane method like hanging, the chair, etc.
The second argument I have issue with is that we, as a people, somehow demean ourselves by performing exections. Personally, I feel very much the same way about societies that don’t have the death penalty. This is because, as I explained, I feel that any society that truly supports justice must support the death penalty in some capacity.
Now, I also understand that this is a bit of an idealists approach, and so I can appreciate a society that may be more or less willing in some circumstances to pull the trigger. However, there will always be an extreme case where even the reluctant must agree that the death penalty is warranted. Where this line should be drawn, I’m not so sure, but I certainly believe that the example presented by the OP is well over that line as evidenced by a number of responses in this thread. As such, I feel that any society that would look down at us for giving that man the death penalty either has a very different outlook on what justice is than I do, or simply doesn’t hold life in the same regard that I do, and either of those positions is plenty disturbing to me.
It does, but there are civil courts. Families have spent bundles of cash and years trying to prove that Dad really was innocent.
Really? Cite, if I may ask without being moronic.
If a person is executed, no criminal court would hear the case as it would be moot. Can a civil court overturn a guilty finding? I maintain (but am willing to be educated) that no executed person in the West in the modern era has ever been found innocent.