The Counter-ACLU...

[Ranger Bill]

I understand the logic: There should be no capital punishment because there is an extremely small chance an innocent person may be put to death. It has happened in the past. Using that logic, no one should be punished for any crime because there is also a chance an innocent person may be punished. This too, has happened in the past. I don't buy the logic.

It’s not perfect – due process, Constitutional rights, beyond a reasonable doubt, a trial and several levels of appeal, etc. – but the odds of getting it wrong are almost nil. We have 300 million people in the U.S. If 3 innocent people are executed in a year, those are 1 in 100 million odds. Last year there were 38,000 traffic fatalities. About 90 people are killed by lightening in a year and 100 die because of allergic reactions to peanuts.

As far back as I can remember, we have continually increased excuses for crime, tied the hands of law enforcement on the street, made prison more comfy than basic training, and hardly anybody gets executed. I'm sure it's by coincidence that during this time, crime has increased. I agree prison time is not a deterent, but only becasue it's not likely in the first place and there no longer is such a thing as hard time. For those who say the death penalty is not a deterrent, why is it that almost everyone on death row has a lawyer working to have their sentence reduced to life? Maybe they are all innocent...

Different men have different opinions. Mine is that there are crimes for which people should be killed in a slow and controlled manner and suffer greatly. Breaking limbs, then throwing them in a leech pit comes to mind. This is suitable for terrorists and serial killers. For rapists who murder their victims, add chopping block castration with a dull blade requiring several swings. For a murder or rape of just one child, hanging – and not in the manner in which the neck is broken. I want kicking and shaking for a few minutes and let the crows pick at the body for a few days afterward. For garden variety murder, more humane killing is in order, like a firing squad. Armed robbery: death. Get caught stealing more than twice: death. Insanity should be no excuse. All prison is hard labor or solitary if they refuse to work. The maximum prison sentence should be no more than 10 years. For any crime deserving of more than that, the punishment should be death. We don't need them reproducing. I could go on, but you get the idea.

[rgrokelley]

I used to be pro-capital punishment. My beliefs have changed over the years for a couple of reasons.

1) Too many times in recent history have convictions been overturned due to DNA exoneration. I don't know about you but if my ass was sitting on death row for a crime I didn't commit, I'd be a little tweaked.

2) I personally think that being locked in a cage for the rest of my natural born life is a worse punishment than taking a short ride on the electric school bus. Maybe that's because I enjoy my freedoms too much.(those that I still have anyway).

As for God-given, blah, blah blah, I challenge you to find the word God in the Constitution. There is a reason it was omitted. Current geo-political situations are a prime example of why.....

The concept of God given rights depends on whether you believe in God or not. Go back to the folks who thought all this out, before there was a USA (Locke, Hobbes, Montesquie) and they deliberated on who gives rights. If a government gives rights, then a government can take them away. They believed that you are born with these rights. If you believe in God, then it is God given rights. If you don't believe in God then it is rights given to you by nature. The Constitution is the framework of our nation, and there is no mention of where those rights came from. It was not considered needed, since the arguments of where rights came from was in the list of grievances against the King, known as the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson borrowed heavily from Locke when he wrote

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

So Jefferson said the right are endowed by your Creator, and sort of straddled the fence on where the rights came from. His point was, they are rights you are born with, whether they came from God, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I also say that they are God given rights, but hey, what has the Flying Spaghetti Monster done for me lately?

http://www.venganza.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[panthersix]

Every time I was arrested I was guilty as hell!

[Baseplate]

I met this guy Dr. Michael West, he is a Dentist in Mississippi he invented a way to see a persons bite marks on a body under ultra violet light that only he can see. He has been used to put a man on death row. One day we were drunk in this bar and I asked him waht he was so famous for at the time I didn't know what he had done. He told me and I quote " the state paid me to help put this guy in jail and I did." After that I have beeen anti death penalty.

You should all read this article about this guy.


http://www.reason.com/news/show/121671.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[rgrokelley]

The usual argument against the death penalty is "what if it was your brother on death row" or some other relation. A simple counter would be, what if it was your daughter who was murdered?

The justice system is in place for one reason, so that citizens will not take the law into their own hands. It is state sponsored revenge, but I'm OK with that. In the absence of law, people will make their own laws. The concept of an organized, full time, police force is fairly new in history. It has only been around for about 150 years. Prior to that people would police their own communities. A roaming sheriff would show up from time to time and do formal arrests, but in the interim people would handle it. Today the word vigilante is looked down upon, but it comes from the Roman vigilance committees, people who would form their own posse and handle the law, since there was no law.

So, in the absence of law, people will make their own laws. I am for the death penalty because if someone murdered one of my daughters I would like to see them dead. If they don't become dead, then I would want to take the law in my own hands and make it happen. The death penalty is there to give justice to folks like me.

Now, back to the DNA argument. DNA evidence is also fairly new. The cases you see overturned are old cases, where the accused had been convicted prior to having DNA evidence. Once DNA started being used, you no longer have that problem. So anyone who is convicted now, won't be mistakenly accused due to lack of DNA evidence. That argument isn't valid for them.

[Lefty]

I understand the logic: There should be no capital punishment because there is an extremely small chance an innocent person may be put to death. It has happened in the past. Using that logic, no one should be punished for any crime because there is also a chance an innocent person may be punished. This too, has happened in the past. I don't buy the logic.

It’s not perfect – due process, Constitutional rights, beyond a reasonable doubt, a trial and several levels of appeal, etc. – but the odds of getting it wrong are almost nil. We have 300 million people in the U.S. If 3 innocent people are executed in a year, those are 1 in 100 million odds. Last year there were 38,000 traffic fatalities. About 90 people are killed by lightening in a year and 100 die because of allergic reactions to peanuts.

As far back as I can remember, we have continually increased excuses for crime, tied the hands of law enforcement on the street, made prison more comfy than basic training, and hardly anybody gets executed. I'm sure it's by coincidence that during this time, crime has increased. I agree prison time is not a deterent, but only becasue it's not likely in the first place and there no longer is such a thing as hard time. For those who say the death penalty is not a deterrent, why is it that almost everyone on death row has a lawyer working to have their sentence reduced to life? Maybe they are all innocent...

Different men have different opinions. Mine is that there are crimes for which people should be killed in a slow and controlled manner and suffer greatly. Breaking limbs, then throwing them in a leech pit comes to mind. This is suitable for terrorists and serial killers. For rapists who murder their victims, add chopping block castration with a dull blade requiring several swings. For a murder or rape of just one child, hanging – and not in the manner in which the neck is broken. I want kicking and shaking for a few minutes and let the crows pick at the body for a few days afterward. For garden variety murder, more humane killing is in order, like a firing squad. Armed robbery: death. Get caught stealing more than twice: death. Insanity should be no excuse. All prison is hard labor or solitary if they refuse to work. The maximum prison sentence should be no more than 10 years. For any crime deserving of more than that, the punishment should be death. We don't need them reproducing. I could go on, but you get the idea.

From "How To" by Peter Passell 1976 McGraw-Hill Ryerson

HOW TO REDUCE TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

To combat road mishaps in Beijing during the 1920's, officials tried a unique approach. Drivers caught ignoring red lights at busy intersections were executed and their heads displayed in baskets next to the traffic signals.
It worked.

[VengefulIcebox]

The justice system is in place for one reason, so that citizens will not take the law into their own hands. It is state sponsored revenge, but I'm OK with that. In the absence of law, people will make their own laws. The concept of an organized, full time, police force is fairly new in history. It has only been around for about 150 years. Prior to that people would police their own communities. A roaming sheriff would show up from time to time and do formal arrests, but in the interim people would handle it. Today the word vigilante is looked down upon, but it comes from the Roman vigilance committees, people who would form their own posse and handle the law, since there was no law.

So, in the absence of law, people will make their own laws. I am for the death penalty because if someone murdered one of my daughters I would like to see them dead. If they don't become dead, then I would want to take the law in my own hands and make it happen. The death penalty is there to give justice to folks like me.

Ranger rgrokelley, that's exactly how I personally recognize the Justice Systems practical value. I wish this value was recognized by a broader percentage of the population expressed and emphasized more.

[panthersix]

The justice system is in place for one reason, so that citizens will not take the law into their own hands. It is state sponsored revenge, but I'm OK with that. In the absence of law, people will make their own laws. The concept of an organized, full time, police force is fairly new in history. It has only been around for about 150 years. Prior to that people would police their own communities. A roaming sheriff would show up from time to time and do formal arrests, but in the interim people would handle it. Today the word vigilante is looked down upon, but it comes from the Roman vigilance committees, people who would form their own posse and handle the law, since there was no law.

So, in the absence of law, people will make their own laws. I am for the death penalty because if someone murdered one of my daughters I would like to see them dead. If they don't become dead, then I would want to take the law in my own hands and make it happen. The death penalty is there to give justice to folks like me.

Ranger rgrokelley, that's exactly how I personally recognize the Justice Systems practical value. I wish this value was recognized by a broader percentage of the population expressed and emphasized more.

Fuck that, if you get arrested, you're guilty!

[DJB]

I oppose the death penalty not because I don’t think there are some crimes so heinous that they warrent death as a punishment. I oppose it because the government is not capable of administering it fairly, competently, and with adequate protections to prevent the execution of an innocent person.

And yes I believe it is far more important to keep an innocent individual out of jail, than a guilty criminal in jail. It is the basis of our justice system (presumption of innocents). It is the same reason I believe private citizens retain the right to defend themselves.

Its odd to me to read complete trust in the competence of the government when it comes to criminal justice from a bunch of guys who seemed so appalled by the events on Ruby ridge.

[dbmtrman]

Some of you watch to much CSI. DNA evidence isn't the all ending decider of guilt or innocence. It's an evidentiary tool. Many of those supposed exonerations through DNA evidence only raised reasonable doubt in those cases. Still doesn't prove beyond all, that those didn't commit the crime. Are we to believe that if someone is killed, but no DNA evidence is not found, no crime was committed? It is just a evidentiary tool, just like witness statements. Many of those witnesses who recant, after the fact, especially many years later, aren't doing it for the fact that there originally statements were false, but they have different views on what has happened, and probably don't want to feel like they had any responsibility for putting someone in jail or on death row.

How about if we just cut off both arms of all murders? I'll bet they won't have a very high likelyhood of ever committing murder again.

[GoldCoast]

These guys actually DO represent what the ACLU says they represent.

As long as you are a Pro-life Christian (Who supports capital punishment).

From their mission statement:

That it is the purpose of government to secure our God-given rights, not to restrict them, nor to invent new rights.

What's wrong with capital punishment?

Besides the fact it is an absolute solution administered by an imperfect system (prone to human error)... nothing I can think of.

[Tirehouse]

Capital Punishment is not a government thing, it is lethal force applied by 12 citizens unanimously. Same decision as made by a police officer in front of a convienience store in a split second or by any of us when we hear the front door get kicked in at 0200. The 12 just get more time to collectivly think about pulling the trigger. Juries, not Judges apply the death penalty.

I thought Juries recommended and Judges decided on sentences.....please correct me if I am wrong.