Good Riddance, Richard Bible

[travelinman67]

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?

Do you think about what you write?

It costs more to execute because the courts have allowed bottomfeeders and peaceniks to throw rocks under the wheels of justice. Solution seems simple to me: Voter initiative.

Every state should have the initiative process which allows voters to pass law WITHOUT legislative approval. You can see the results here in CA just this past week:
In 2010, our nightmarish leftislature took 100 days PAST THE BUDGET DEADLINE to approve the State Budget. Voters responded on Nov. 2, 2010 by passing Proposition 25, which suspended legislator's pay if they didn't have a balanced budget passed by the deadline.
Et Voila', on June 28th 2011, the Leftislature passed a "balanced" budget (kicking and screaming) with a simple majority (all Dem) vote.

The same can be done with the death penalty cases. Fix it, or lose your job. Don't think it can be done with the judiciary?

Google Rose Bird.

All it would take is a public awareness campaign to make the voters aware of how much money is being spent on appellate review, and most importantly, the ludicrous nature of those reviews.

Case in point: Sodium Thiopental. The use of this "approved" sedative for executions, and its scarcity, which has been used as the fulcrum to block dozens of executions, is absurd. The judiciary has completely lost focus of argument. ST is THE SEDATIVE, not the lethal chemical (pancurium and sodium chloride). There ARE other coma-inducing alternatives, but for some reason, the court have been utilizing STUDIES PROVIDED BY ANTI-DEATH PENALTY GROUPS as the basis for their review of alternatives....

...REALLY!

Start removing these judges, and watch the costs plummet.

[OL FU]

Over the years I have become more and more anti-death penalty because of the lack of fairness in the maner it is handed out. the one exception would be crimes againts children. that cannot be tolerated.

[citdog]

Over the years I have become more and more anti-death penalty because of the lack of fairness in the maner it is handed out. the one exception would be crimes againts children. that cannot be tolerated.

OL FU has this tramp stamp

[travelinman67]

Over the years I have become more and more anti-death penalty because of the lack of fairness in the maner it is handed out. the one exception would be crimes againts children. that cannot be tolerated.

OL FU has this tramp stamp

[OL FU]

Over the years I have become more and more anti-death penalty because of the lack of fairness in the maner it is handed out. the one exception would be crimes againts children. that cannot be tolerated.

OL FU has this tramp stamp

that's a good point too.
But I was actually thinking of murderous women like susan smith killing her own children and not being executed. there is no fairness.



But your other point works.

[BlueHen86]

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.

I'll try and make it simple for Cluck (In case there isn't an adult around to read to him):

See the man in prison.
See the man in prison who is no longer a threat.
Do not kill the man in prison.

Maybe someone can explain the rest of this post to Cluck (In case there is an adult around):

War and Capital Punishment are two diffent things and I think should be debated separately, but since you insist on linking them: I wouldn't kill POW's and I wouldn't kill convicts. It's that simple. If they are in a prison or prison camp I would not kill them.

Also, I have never once said I was in favor of killing civilians in war, I believe you are the one who said it's the cost of doing business. Perhaps it is, maybe you can't have a war without civilian casualties, that doesn't mean that you have to also have capital punishment.

Things can not always be viewed as black and white, most things are gray. Not killing a prisoner is a very specific situation, maybe as close to black (or white depending on your preception) as it gets. War unfortunately, tends to be gray.

[BlueHen86]

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.

Let me know when you have a coherent argument to make. You're all over the place.

First it was: we kill innocent civilians in war, why not kill people on death row.
Then it was: kill people on death row because it's cheaper.
Now it's: let's kill them to prevent second hand repeat offenders.

By any chance, were you one of the guys who were trying to justify the Iraq invasion?

[CID1990]

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.

Yeah... like Tibet.

How's that working out for them?

[YoUDeeMan]

I'll try and make it simple for Cluck (In case there isn't an adult around to read to him):

See the man in prison.
See the man in prison who is no longer a threat.
Do not kill the man in prison.

Maybe someone can explain the rest of this post to Cluck (In case there is an adult around):

War and Capital Punishment are two diffent things and I think should be debated separately, but since you insist on linking them: I wouldn't kill POW's and I wouldn't kill convicts. It's that simple. If they are in a prison or prison camp I would not kill them.

Also, I have never once said I was in favor of killing civilians in war, I believe you are the one who said it's the cost of doing business. Perhaps it is, maybe you can't have a war without civilian casualties, that doesn't mean that you have to also have capital punishment.

Things can not always be viewed as black and white, most things are gray. Not killing a prisoner is a very specific situation, maybe as close to black (or white depending on your preception) as it gets. War unfortunately, tends to be gray.

This is your quote...number nine in this thread.

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.

So, instead of turning the other cheek, see Switzerland, you are in favor of going to war when attacked. Wars kill innocent civilians...so you are in favor of killing innocent civilians when it is convenient for you. Try as you may, and you've tried hard to make things complicated and fuzzy (does that make it feel good?), there is really no getting around that fact.

And your rant about prisoners not being a threat is pure garbage. They can, and have, escaped and killed again. Yup, look it up. I'm sure you'll conveniently ignore the loss of those innocents. And you ignored the issue that bad guys in prison tend to teach others their trades. So, by keeping some of the worst prisoners alive, there will be more crime victims...murder, rape, violent robberies...all with innocent victims. Not your problem though...maybe. You or a family member might one day be a victim of a released convict.

Close the door and don't peek...it's easier that way.

[YoUDeeMan]

Let me know when you have a coherent argument to make. You're all over the place.

First it was: we kill innocent civilians in war, why not kill people on death row.
Then it was: kill people on death row because it's cheaper.
Now it's: let's kill them to prevent second hand repeat offenders.

By any chance, were you one of the guys who were trying to justify the Iraq invasion?

Let's review:

1) You were concerned that we'd kill a few innocent people on death row. That would be a small percentage...not a problem in my book. We kill innocent people all the time.

2) Yup.

3) Yup.

And yes, I was in favor of attacking Iraq. The evidence said there were WMDs. Once we determined they were not a threat, it was time to go.

[Wedgebuster]

So, the Dick Bible is now dead for good??

[BlueHen86]

Let me know when you have a coherent argument to make. You're all over the place.

First it was: we kill innocent civilians in war, why not kill people on death row.
Then it was: kill people on death row because it's cheaper.
Now it's: let's kill them to prevent second hand repeat offenders.

By any chance, were you one of the guys who were trying to justify the Iraq invasion?

Let's review:

1) You were concerned that we'd kill a few innocent people on death row. That would be a small percentage...not a problem in my book. We kill innocent people all the time.
2) Yup.

3) Yup.

And yes, I was in favor of attacking Iraq. The evidence said there were WMDs. Once we determined they were not a threat, it was time to go.

Well that makes it okay then, you should have said so in the first place. Heck, why limit the killing of innocent people to death row or war, just extend it to everyday life.

Kill a few people on the way home from work - no problem, we kill innocent people all the time.

Of course, if you legalize the killing of innocent people there would be no need for the death penalty.

[YoUDeeMan]

Well that makes it okay then, you should have said so in the first place. Heck, why limit the killing of innocent people to death row or war, just extend it to everyday life.

Kill a few people on the way home from work - no problem, we kill innocent people all the time.

Of course, if you legalize the killing of innocent people there would be no need for the death penalty.

You are OK with killing innocent people.

You said it is OK in war...a cost of doing business, and you OK it by allowing nut jobs to live and escape - or live and influence others in or out of prison, a decision that effectively kills other innocent people down the line. So, you are simply transferring the innocent deaths to someone else.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/18deter.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“Capital punishment may well save lives,” the two professors continued. “Those who object to capital punishment, and who do so in the name of protecting life, must come to terms with the possibility that the failure to inflict capital punishment will fail to protect life.”

[BlueHen86]

Well that makes it okay then, you should have said so in the first place. Heck, why limit the killing of innocent people to death row or war, just extend it to everyday life.

Kill a few people on the way home from work - no problem, we kill innocent people all the time.

Of course, if you legalize the killing of innocent people there would be no need for the death penalty.

You are OK with killing innocent people.

You said it is OK in war...a cost of doing business, and you OK it by allowing nut jobs to live and escape - or live and influence others in or out of prison, a decision that effectively kills other innocent people down the line. So, you are simply transferring the innocent deaths to someone else.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/18deter.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“Capital punishment may well save lives,” the two professors continued. “Those who object to capital punishment, and who do so in the name of protecting life, must come to terms with the possibility that the failure to inflict capital punishment will fail to protect life.”

You must be right about capital punishment, you found an article where two professors agree with you.

And what a convicing argument the professors made, they even used the word "possibility", I can't think of a stronger, more definitve word. That should possibly put an end to the debate once and for all.

[YoUDeeMan]

You must be right about capital punishment, you found an article where two professors agree with you.

And what a convicing argument the professors made, they even used the word "possibility", I can't think of a stronger, more definitve word. That should possibly put an end to the debate once and for all.

Glad you think "possibility" makes for a weak argument. As in, we shouldn't execute criminals because, after going through our court system, there is a "possibility" that a murderer might be innocent.

One thing is for sure...if you execute a murderer, there is ZERO possibility that he will murder again.

And you are still in denial about murderers/rapists killing/raping innocents again. Good to see you ignore reality.

86's letters will be pouring out soon. "Dear mother...I am sorry I let your son's murderer live to kill again. But he might have been innocent and I thought the situation was under control. Hey, your son's life wasn't my concern at the time."

As for just two professors agreeing, I see your reading skills are failing you again.

[BlueHen86]

You must be right about capital punishment, you found an article where two professors agree with you.

And what a convicing argument the professors made, they even used the word "possibility", I can't think of a stronger, more definitve word. That should possibly put an end to the debate once and for all.

Glad you think "possibility" makes for a weak argument. As in, we shouldn't execute criminals because, after going through our court system, there is a "possibility" that a murderer might be innocent.

Since you brought up reading skills #1:

Find the post where I said that. You've been putting those words in my mouth the whole time, but I never that. I realize that you can't win an argument unless you are also allowed to put words in the other guys mouth, but we're on a message board here so it's real easy to check and see what was actually said. Pointing out a potential benefit of an action is not the same as justifying why you like that action.

For example, suppose I say that I love my wife, and then I say me wife is a good cook, that does not mean that I love my wife because she is a good cook. If I say I'm against the death penalty, and then I say that if we get rid of the death penalty innocent people on death row might live, that doesn't mean against the death penalty because we can save innocent people on death row.

The only reason I let you go on so long is because we had this argument about 6 months ago and I thought it was funny that you took the opportunity to start it all over again, as if you expected to accomplish something this time. I also liked the way you jumped all over the intentionally "low percentage what if" question I fired at SuperHornet in response to his "low percentage what if" question. I guess the fact that it was an intentionally over the top question eluded you, I should have known better.

One thing is for sure...if you execute a murderer, there is ZERO possibility that he will murder again.

And you are still in denial about murderers/rapists killing/raping innocents again. Good to see you ignore reality.

86's letters will be pouring out soon. "Dear mother...I am sorry I let your son's murderer live to kill again. But he might have been innocent and I thought the situation was under control. Hey, your son's life wasn't my concern at the time."

As for just two professors agreeing, I see your reading skills are failing you again.

Since you brought reading skills #2:

Where in my post did I say just two. I said "two" because that was the number that was cited in your post. Once again putting words in my mouth.



I can't wait for your well thought out response, so I'll settle for the poorly thought out one that I know you'll come up with.

[JohnStOnge]

Saw an old Twilight Zone I'd never seen before the other day. The Devil came and told this guy he'd give him a few thousand years to live in exchange for his soul. Said nothing could hurt him. Deal was done. And there was an escape clause. If the guy decided he didn't WANT to live the thousands of years the Devil would come back and put and end to his life.

So he started trying things. Like he jumped in front of a subway train. Like the Devil said nothing could hurt him. He got bored so he decided to try the electric chair. Killed some woman. Everything was going fine. He thought he'd go to the chair and it wouldn't kill him. Don't know what he thought would happen then.

But, anyway, without his knowledge his attorney managed to get him life in prison instead of the chair. So he's sitting there in jail thinking about what "life" in prison was going to mean to HIM in particular with his thousands of years to live. So here comes the Devil asking him if he was ready to exercise his escape clause. And of course he was.

[BDKJMU]

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.

Since the death penalty was re instated in 76' after Furman v Gerogia there hasn't been one documented case of a person put to death who was later proven innocent.

[SuperHornet]

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

Since the death penalty was re instated in 78' after Furman v Gerogia there hasn't been one documented case of a person put to death who was later proven innocent.

Maybe not. But there HAVE been documented instances where DNA has proven death-row inmates innocent before they were executed.

[BDKJMU]

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?

Even now with the fact that due to all the appeals it costs more to keep them on death row, there's also the fact that its often a bargaining chip for the prosecution- defendant pleads guilty to a 1st degree murder conviction in exchange for not getting capital punishment, thereby saving the taxpayers of that locality/state a buttload of $.

Happened in Harrisonburg while I was at JMU. 16 yr old shot & killed a supermarket manager while stealing beer. Plead guilty to 1st degree murder in exchange for the the capital murder charge being dropped. Saved Harrisonburg & Virginia a buttload of $.

[BlueHen86]

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

Since the death penalty was re instated in 76' after Furman v Gerogia there hasn't been one documented case of a person put to death who was later proven innocent.

Maybe because once they are dead there is no point in trying to prove innocence?

Admittedly it's rare, which is why it is not one of the main reasons for my anti-death penalty stance. There are lots of good arguments for and against the death penalty, which probably explains why some states have it and some don't. I don't think cost is a good argument.

[BlueHen86]

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?

Even now with the fact that due to all the appeals it costs more to keep them on death row, there's also the fact that its often a bargaining chip for the prosecution- defendant pleads guilty to a 1st degree murder conviction in exchange for not getting capital punishment, thereby saving the taxpayers of that locality/state a buttload of $.

Happened in Harrisonburg while I was at JMU. 16 yr old shot & killed a supermarket manager while stealing beer. Plead guilty to 1st degree murder in exchange for the the capital murder charge being dropped. Saved Harrisonburg & Virginia a buttload of $.

Do you know what his sentence was? We're arguing alot about the death penalty, but I think the bigger problem is that a murderer can get sentenced to life - with a chance for parole.

I forget the name, but there was one guy who was sentenced to die. The death sentence was change to life - with a chance for parole. Seems to me that if your crime is worthy of the death penalty, you should never get out.

[BDKJMU]

Even now with the fact that due to all the appeals it costs more to keep them on death row, there's also the fact that its often a bargaining chip for the prosecution- defendant pleads guilty to a 1st degree murder conviction in exchange for not getting capital punishment, thereby saving the taxpayers of that locality/state a buttload of $.

Happened in Harrisonburg while I was at JMU. 16 yr old shot & killed a supermarket manager while stealing beer. Plead guilty to 1st degree murder in exchange for the the capital murder charge being dropped. Saved Harrisonburg & Virginia a buttload of $.

Do you know what his sentence was? We're arguing alot about the death penalty, but I think the bigger problem is that a murderer can get sentenced to life - with a chance for parole.

I forget the name, but there was one guy who was sentenced to die. The death sentence was change to life - with a chance for parole. Seems to me that if your crime is worthy of the death penalty, you should never get out.

Nevermind, I mis-remembered the whole thing. The guy, Russell Tross, committed the murder of the store manager, who was a married father, in Jan of 93' and later WAS convicted of capital murder.
http://www.romingerlegal.com/va_caselaw ... 28944.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
8 years ago VA, which is right behind Texas in those convicted of capital murder put to death, led the nation with the shortest amount of time spent on death row on avg before execution, a little over 3 years (the national avg is now over 10 years):
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... 945-9094r/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
For whatever reasons, the appeals dragged way out longer in this case than most in VA, so come 05' 11-12 years later later this guy still hadn't been put to death. 05' in Roper V Simmons you then had 4 liberal justices and Kennedy (who's no conservative) say we could no longer execute those who had committed heinous murders as 16-17 yr olds. I vaguely remember reading something in the Harrisonburg Daily News Record about Tross seeking a new trial as he could no longer receive the death penalty as he was 16 yrs old at the time he murdered the store manager. I don't remember if he got a new trial or not, just remember it was going to cost the local & state taxpayers a buttload of $ if he did. After all, there was at least one witness that that saw him shoot the supermarket manager in the face, an ABC agent who later gave chase, they recovered the murder weapon, the kid confessed, etc. Was open and shut case. So to answer your question, I don't know what his new sentence ended up being, and if there ever was a possibility of parole.