I saw the doctor’s press conference. Poor man. 
Firstly, to the OP - I was going to say that they should be convicted first. We don’t execute the acquitted/still-on-trial.
But, now that the trial is over… Exterminate the brutes. But to keep it cheap they should just have the court officers give them a shot behind the ear as soon as they get back to the prison (or after a reasonable appelate process - like one shot at an appeal).
Oh, they should also be first set ablaze. Eye for an eye feels appropriate on this one. No 20 year bullshit waiting around for an execution to go through, either way; they’ve cost this poor guy and the society too much already.
The whole conviction trial was a formality. These bozos were caught in the act of henious crimes.
Thanks to everyone who voted for death.
I know that, upthread, I suggested feeding them to sharks as a reasonable alternative, but I can’t get behind torture. It’s spiritually bad for the torturer and the society that sanctions it.
For what? Making you feel better about your primitive urges?
Are you talking to me or Annie?
Never mind, I see you have removed the ambiguity.
I’m not even going to touch your primitive urges, Rhymer. Not enough disinfectant in the world. 
Haha. No matter how many times I read this, I still can’t quite figure out what it means.
More tea and cake for the rest of us?
I should think you would have removed to a flamingbee-proof enclosure before saying that. Ah well, your name explains it.
Huh. Wonder if a lesser degree of arson would have stuck. I can’t imagine that it’s legal to douse things you don’t own in flammable chemicals.
Oh, you mean the instruction that is (a) irrelevant because our laws aren’t based on the fucking Bible and (b) intended to *limit *disgusting blood feuds? You know, the law that they decided needed to be put into place to *rein in *people like you?
Yes, thanks to those of you who were vocal, so we can now pick you out in a crowd.
Only one of the two criminal trials is over. The other defendant will be tried next year. And then there will be two penalty phase trials, assuming that the second defendant will also be found guilty. Which isn’t a stretch considering he was caught red-handed.
Meh - torture them to death anyway. It won’t bring anyone back, or prevent any future deaths, but it’ll satisfy my own blood lust. And we know this other dude is guilty anyway, the trial is just a waste of money.
Hardly. Supporting the rule of law is necessary in all cases; the state cannot be allowed to decide who is and is not entitled to due process. This is one of those times when the slippery slope argument is entirely true, because people, as you may have noticed, are assholes.
The silence you’re hearing now is the pause before the boom of the supersonic whoosh going over Skald’s head.
Killing them will prevent them from killing anyone else.
If giving them life in prison would somehow bring their victims back to life, I’d support it. But, as Dr. Petit pointed out in his statement, his family is still dead.
Giving them life in prison will also prevent them from killing anyone else, and is at least as effective in terms of bringing the victims back to life as executing them would be.
Cause we all know that nobody sentenced to life in prison has ever killed again, either inside the prison or having escaped or been paroled from prison.:rolleyes:
Maybe. I haven’t read the whole thread, but some persons have espoused such sentiments, it seemed to me.
Outside of fiction, how common would you say that is?
ETA: So I’m clear, I mean escapes by lifers who go on to kill on the outside.