Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Richard Bible was executed by lethal injection Thursday morning for the 1988 rape and murder of 9-year-old Jennifer Wilson in Flagstaff.

Bible looked straight ahead during the procedure, according to media witnesses.

"I'd like to thank my family, my lawyers. I love 'em all, and everything's OK," he told onlookers.



Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/community/p...#ixzz1QnTiWGsn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


I lived in Flagstaff at the time - very sad occurance.

Jennifer's Dad played football for NAU.

Too bad it took 23 years for this.

HI54UNI wrote:Too bad it took 23 years for this.

Tell me about it.

HI54UNI wrote:Too bad it took 23 years for this.

Such is capital punishment these days. Would have been easier, and cheaper, to let him rot in prison and get the living shit beat out of him for the rest of his life.

Grizalltheway wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:Too bad it took 23 years for this.

Such is capital punishment these days. Would have been easier, and cheaper, to let him rot in prison and get the living shit beat out of him for the rest of his life.

Lock him up with no hope of ever getting out. Give him a spartan existence. He can have books to read and paper to write with, but that's it. No TV, no weights, no recess or exercise time, and he eats whatever cheap food the prison is serving that day.

BlueHen86 wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Such is capital punishment these days. Would have been easier, and cheaper, to let him rot in prison and get the living shit beat out of him for the rest of his life.

Lock him up with no hope of ever getting out. Give him a spartan existence. He can have books to read and paper to write with, but that's it. No TV, no weights, no recess or exercise time, and he eats whatever cheap food the prison is serving that day.

But what do you do if he escapes?

SuperHornet wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
Lock him up with no hope of ever getting out. Give him a spartan existence. He can have books to read and paper to write with, but that's it. No TV, no weights, no recess or exercise time, and he eats whatever cheap food the prison is serving that day.

But what do you do if he escapes?

Catch him and lock him up again. The same thing I would do if he escaped during his 23 years on death row.

What would you do if you executed him and he turned out to be innocent?

BlueHen86 wrote:Catch him and lock him up again. The same thing I would do if he escaped during his 23 years on death row.

What would you do if you executed him and he turned out to be innocent?

The same thing Obama and most of the world does when a missle hits a couple civilians...chalk it up as a cost of doing business.

Cluck U wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:Catch him and lock him up again. The same thing I would do if he escaped during his 23 years on death row.

What would you do if you executed him and he turned out to be innocent?

The same thing Obama and most of the world does when a missle hits a couple civilians...chalk it up as a cost of doing business.

Executing innocent prisoners doesn't have to be the cost of doing business, we make it so by using the death penalty.

Unfortunately, in war, occasionally killing civilians is the cost of doing business.

BlueHen86 wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
The same thing Obama and most of the world does when a missle hits a couple civilians...chalk it up as a cost of doing business.

Executing innocent prisoners doesn't have to be the cost of doing business, we make it so by using the death penalty.

Unfortunately, in war, occasionally killing civilians is the cost of doing business.

Not so. We could choose not to kill civilians. There are many alternatives...including not going to war in the first place. You've heard about Switzerland, haven't you?

Cluck U wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
Executing innocent prisoners doesn't have to be the cost of doing business, we make it so by using the death penalty.

Unfortunately, in war, occasionally killing civilians is the cost of doing business.

Not so. We could choose not to kill civilians. There are many alternatives...including not going to war in the first place. You've heard about Switzerland, haven't you?

Really? We weren't at war when Pearl Harbor was attacked, we weren't at war when 9/11 took place.

If you are pro death penalty I'm okay with that, you are entitled to your opinion and I respect that. It's one thing to defend yourself, which I think everyone and every nation has the right to do. It's another to kill someone who is already in custody. I think your attempts to link the death penalty and war are off the mark.

BlueHen86 wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
Not so. We could choose not to kill civilians. There are many alternatives...including not going to war in the first place. You've heard about Switzerland, haven't you?

Really? We weren't at war when Pearl Harbor was attacked, we weren't at war when 9/11 took place.

If you are pro death penalty I'm okay with that, you are entitled to your opinion and I respect that. It's one thing to defend yourself, which I think everyone and every nation has the right to do. It's another to kill someone who is already in custody. I think your attempts to link the death penalty and war are off the mark.

Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were examples of the U.S. sustaining civilians casualties...not examples of where we decided to kill civilians. We could have refused to go to war...turn the other cheek. But as you stated, most people decide that killing another human is OK. Once that line is crossed, then we are just arguing the price we put on someone's life...including innocent people.

Cluck U wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
Really? We weren't at war when Pearl Harbor was attacked, we weren't at war when 9/11 took place.

If you are pro death penalty I'm okay with that, you are entitled to your opinion and I respect that. It's one thing to defend yourself, which I think everyone and every nation has the right to do. It's another to kill someone who is already in custody. I think your attempts to link the death penalty and war are off the mark.

Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were examples of the U.S. sustaining civilians casualties...not examples of where we decided to kill civilians. We could have refused to go to war...turn the other cheek. But as you stated, most people decide that killing another human is OK. Once that line is crossed, then we are just arguing the price we put on someone's life...including innocent people.

Agreed, but in war, we don't kill POW's (as far as I know).

It's where you choose to draw the line. I choose to draw it shy of killing people people who are already in custody and can do no more harm. I am against the death penalty and I am against killing POW's. I am okay with killing in self defense if warranted. If you can't/won't distinguish between the two that's fine, you choose to draw the line differently than I do.

BlueHen86 wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Such is capital punishment these days. Would have been easier, and cheaper, to let him rot in prison and get the living **** beat out of him for the rest of his life.

Lock him up with no hope of ever getting out. Give him a spartan existence. He can have books to read and paper to write with, but that's it. No TV, no weights, no recess or exercise time, and he eats whatever cheap food the prison is serving that day.

Agreed.

BlueHen86 wrote:

Cluck U wrote: Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were examples of the U.S. sustaining civilians casualties...not examples of where we decided to kill civilians. We could have refused to go to war...turn the other cheek. But as you stated, most people decide that killing another human is OK. Once that line is crossed, then we are just arguing the price we put on someone's life...including innocent people.

Agreed, but in war, we don't kill POW's (as far as I know).

It's where you choose to draw the line. I choose to draw it shy of killing people people who are already in custody and can do no more harm. I am against the death penalty and I am against killing POW's. I am okay with killing in self defense if warranted. If you can't/won't distinguish between the two that's fine, you choose to draw the line differently than I do.

It costs money to incarcerate someone.

A person who is a major threat to society should be eliminated quickly. The prison space and resources could be better used elsewhere.

Cluck U wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
Agreed, but in war, we don't kill POW's (as far as I know).

It's where you choose to draw the line. I choose to draw it shy of killing people people who are already in custody and can do no more harm. I am against the death penalty and I am against killing POW's. I am okay with killing in self defense if warranted. If you can't/won't distinguish between the two that's fine, you choose to draw the line differently than I do.

It costs money to incarcerate someone.

A person who is a major threat to society should be eliminated quickly. The prison space and resources could be better used elsewhere.

Right or wrong, that just doesn't happen anymore. Costs more to get all the way to execution than it does to let them rot in prison for life.

Also, what happened to your peacenik shtick from the other thread?

I'm still waiting to hear that the douchebag me and my fellow jurors sentenced to death in '96 met his maker. He killed at least 3 women, and speculation is it could be much more.

Grizalltheway wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
It costs money to incarcerate someone.

A person who is a major threat to society should be eliminated quickly. The prison space and resources could be better used elsewhere.

Right or wrong, that just doesn't happen anymore. Costs more to get all the way to execution than it does to let them rot in prison for life.

Also, what happened to your peacenik shtick from the other thread?

The only way it costs more is to treat them differently and keep them alive for years.

Verdict, one appeal - quickly - and execute. Done. Frees up space and resources. No further need to release clowns who will repeat crimes from overcrowded prisons.


What peacenik shtick?

Cluck U wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Right or wrong, that just doesn't happen anymore. Costs more to get all the way to execution than it does to let them rot in prison for life.

Also, what happened to your peacenik shtick from the other thread?

The only way it costs more is to treat them differently and keep them alive for years.

Verdict, one appeal - quickly - and execute. Done. Frees up space and resources. No further need to release clowns who will repeat crimes from overcrowded prisons.


What peacenik shtick?

Oops, I guess it was in this thread. The whole bit about not retaliating when we're attacked on our soil.

Cluck U wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
Agreed, but in war, we don't kill POW's (as far as I know).

It's where you choose to draw the line. I choose to draw it shy of killing people people who are already in custody and can do no more harm. I am against the death penalty and I am against killing POW's. I am okay with killing in self defense if warranted. If you can't/won't distinguish between the two that's fine, you choose to draw the line differently than I do.

It costs money to incarcerate someone.

A person who is a major threat to society should be eliminated quickly. The prison space and resources could be better used elsewhere.

So, you are okay with potentially killing the innocent, as long as it saves money. Sad.

Grizalltheway wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
The only way it costs more is to treat them differently and keep them alive for years.

Verdict, one appeal - quickly - and execute. Done. Frees up space and resources. No further need to release clowns who will repeat crimes from overcrowded prisons.


What peacenik shtick?

Oops, I guess it was in this thread. The whole bit about not retaliating when we're attacked on our soil.

I'm sure that he is a peacenik. It has to be cheaper to turn the other cheek than it does to retaliate. I'm sure he was against the invasion or both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Instead of building bombs, I'm sure Cluck would rather we build guillotines so than we can kill convicts quicker and cheaper.

Grizalltheway wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
The only way it costs more is to treat them differently and keep them alive for years.

Verdict, one appeal - quickly - and execute. Done. Frees up space and resources. No further need to release clowns who will repeat crimes from overcrowded prisons.


What peacenik shtick?

Oops, I guess it was in this thread. The whole bit about not retaliating when we're attacked on our soil.

Why do libs have such a hard time understanding things?

If someone attacks us, I'd kill everyone involved and not worry about offending anyone. And I would not worry about killing a few innocent civilians in order to kill those who were actually involved.

On the other hand, 86 isn't concerned about killing innocent civilians during a war...hey, too bad for those innocent folks, but he doesn't want to kill a single innocent American civilian in a war against crime.

That is laughingly inconsistent.

BlueHen86 wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
It costs money to incarcerate someone.

A person who is a major threat to society should be eliminated quickly. The prison space and resources could be better used elsewhere.

So, you are okay with potentially killing the innocent, as long as it saves money. Sad.

Hey, since we're playing "what if" with small percentages, if you keep a murderer alive you are potentially killing the innocent. Bad guys do escape. And those that don't often influence others to continue a life of crime after they get out.

Let me know when you'll get around to caring enough about the innocent that were victims of crimes committed by repeat offenders.

BlueHen86 wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
It costs money to incarcerate someone.

A person who is a major threat to society should be eliminated quickly. The prison space and resources could be better used elsewhere.

So, you are okay with potentially killing the innocent, as long as it saves money. Sad.

Potentially killing an innocent or potentially locking up an innocent in a spartan existence for 60 years. . . Both seem pretty bad.

Vidav wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
So, you are okay with potentially killing the innocent, as long as it saves money. Sad.

Potentially killing an innocent or potentially locking up an innocent in a spartan existence for 60 years. . . Both seem pretty bad.

You are right, but our legal system is not perfect. Sometimes the innocent will be convicted, but we don't have to execute them.