Scott Petersen: Death - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

mikemover · #31 12-13-2004, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Three reasons:

(1) You describe a miniscule fraction of the cases in which the death penalty has been applied.

(2) Those factors pertain to the guilt phase of the trial. They have nothing to do with the penalty phase.

(3) Long, miserable experience has proven that our system has so far been incapable of administering the death penalty in a fair manner. Our capital punishment system is an abomination. If we want to execute people, we should do it in public and we should spend the resources needed to do it right. The reasons that will never happen is that so few people are directly affected by the death penalty, so it is easy for politicians to get the masses to go along with what seems to be emotionally appealing to them.

I say we stick with the Sixth Amendment. It is nice and simple.

I agree with KV that our criteria for administering the death penalty requires some reform, and should only apply to cases that are far, FAR beyond reasonable doubt. And I don't think the Petereson case qualifies as that. I figure it will be overturned, and will become a life sentence. I think he is a piece of $h!t, and that he did kill his wife/son, but the prosecution just did not produce enough hard, tangible evidence to warrant the death penalty.

I also agree with YOU concerning public executions. I think they should be attendable, by anyone who wants to attend, and they should also be televised. Pay-per-view, perhaps, to help cover the cost?...

Right now, the death penalty does not serve as a highly effective deterrent (except to the murderer being executed!

), but I think that would drastically change if other "potential murderers" saw what an execution is REALLY like. Seeing is believing.

Mike

Honus · #32 12-13-2004, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

...I think he is a piece of $h!t, and that he did kill his wife/son...

Agreed.

Honus · #33 12-13-2004, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

...Right now, the death penalty does not serve as a highly effective deterrent (except to the murderer being executed!

), but I think that would drastically change if other "potential murderers" saw what an execution is REALLY like. Seeing is believing.

Mike

That may be true. Even if we did that, I still couldn't accept the death penalty, but I would feel much better about our country if it were more honest about it.

mikemover · #34 12-13-2004, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Our death penalty is unjust. It is an abomination. If someone kills my loved one, the injury is only compounded by the state's unjust killing done on my behalf. .

If he has murdered you loved one, then the state's "killing" is NOT unjust.

If it were MY loved one that was murdered, and the state didn't do it's job, then I would do it myself, and live with the consequences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

So, which is it? Either no one is authorized to decide, or you are authorized to decide that a murderer's life becomes forfeit. Can't have it both ways. .

You missed the entire point. If the penalty for murder is pre-established....and it IS....then by committing a murder, the MURDERER is responsible for his own fate. No one else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

That's true, but I don't live by his moral code..

Again you miss the point. We're not talking about you. We're talking about a murderer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Direct? yes. Effective? no. There has never been a study that shows that the death penalty reduces the murder rate. To the extent a correlation between death penalty and murder rate has been detected, it is in the opposite direction. In other words, there is some admittedly shakey evidence that a state's adoption of the death penalty is more likely to increase the murder rate than to reduce it.

???

I don't need a study to tell me that a dead murderer cannot possibly commit another murder.

Mike

mikemover · #35 12-13-2004, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Even though your approach is more expensive? I miss your logic on that one.

Yes. When it comes to murder, I'm more concerned about PRINCIPLE and JUSTICE than I am about COST. If a person is proven beyond ANY doubt to be a murderer, then I want him dead, even if it costs more money.

I'm a devout capitalist and libertarian, but I'm not COMPLETELY heartless.

Mike

mikemover · #36 12-13-2004, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

That may be true. Even if we did that, I still couldn't accept the death penalty, but I would feel much better about our country if it were more honest about it.

So you're a bit queasy about death....that's a GOOD thing....You're not likely to ever turn out to be a murderer, and you have nothing to worry about concerning the death penalty.

Mike

KirkVining · #37 12-13-2004, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Even though your approach is more expensive? I miss your logic on that one.

I know the question is for him, but allow me to give my answer, based on cold logic. There is a certain class of human beings that have an incurable mental defect - a lack of a conscience. They are not people, they are predators. Petersen may even be one of them - I hear they are looking at him for three other murders. Given the chance, they will kill, because it is as natural to them as a coyote howl. They need to be killed, because they will always kill. It is the only way to insure someone doesn't lose their little kids or some guard gets shived or some inmate in on a lessor crime serving food in Death Row isn't tortured to death. We had one who got his death sentence commuted here in Texas,Kennth McDufff, who got out on parole under some horrendous incompetance, and then proceeded to kill about 12 people, all of them young people, most of them women, one a pregnant convenience store clerk who was tortured for hours before he killed her. Mr. McDuff said "Killing women is just like killing chickens, they both sqwauk." This monster was a murder machine. Killing him was the only logical thing to do. His story:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9811/17/texas.execution/

No matter what the cost, if this man had been executed, all those people would be alive today.

koop · #38 12-13-2004, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

I agree with KV that our criteria for administering the death penalty requires some reform, and should only apply to cases that are far, FAR beyond reasonable doubt. And I don't think the Petereson case qualifies as that. I figure it will be overturned, and will become a life sentence. I think he is a piece of $h!t, and that he did kill his wife/son, but the prosecution just did not produce enough hard, tangible evidence to warrant the death penalty.

I also agree with YOU concerning public executions. I think they should be attendable, by anyone who wants to attend, and they should also be televised. Pay-per-view, perhaps, to help cover the cost?...

Right now, the death penalty does not serve as a highly effective deterrent (except to the murderer being executed!

), but I think that would drastically change if other "potential murderers" saw what an execution is REALLY like. Seeing is believing.

Mike

Because potential murderers are thinking "gee, I could do the 50 years in jail but that needle would be way too much"

Not too many people are commiting murder based on a well thought out plan of what happens after they get caught.

mikemover · #39 12-13-2004, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by koop

Not too many people are commiting murder based on a well thought out plan of what happens after they get caught.

You are correct.

But they have never witnessed a REAL execution either.

I think making executions public would be worth it, even if it only deterred maybe 1 out of 100 "potential" murderers. That would mean one more innocent person would NOT be murdered. What is one life worth? What if it was YOUR loved one, or YOU, that was spared?

Regardless of whether it has any deterrent value or not, I support it on principle alone.

Mike

mikemover · #40 12-13-2004, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirkVining

I know the question is for him, but allow me to give my answer, based on cold logic. There is a certain class of human beings that have an incurable mental defect - a lack of a conscience. They are not people, they are predators. Petersen may even be one of them - I hear they are looking at him for three other murders. Given the chance, they will kill, because it is as natural to them as a coyote howl. They need to be killed, because they will always kill. It is the only way to insure someone doesn't lose their little kids or some guard gets shived or some inmate in on a lessor crime serving food in Death Row isn't tortured to death. We had one who got his death sentence commuted here in Texas,Kennth McDufff, who got out on parole under some horrendous incompetance, and then proceeded to kill about 12 people, all of them young people, most of them women, one a pregnant convenience store clerk who was tortured for hours before he killed her. Mr. McDuff said "Killing women is just like killing chickens, they both sqwauk." This monster was a murder machine. Killing him was the only logical thing to do. His story:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9811/17/texas.execution/

No matter what the cost, if this man had been executed, all those people would be alive today.

I remember that story.....When I think of such cases, my vocabulary fails me. I cannot even think of words strong enough to describe how much it angers me that he was allowed to live, let alone be released to kill again!......

How ANYONE could argue against the death penalty in cases like that one is beyond my comprehension.

Like I said before....Death is too easy for monsters like that, but until we come up with something worse.....It'll have to do.

Mike

KirkVining · #41 12-13-2004, 08:27 PM

The deterrence value is minimal. The real purpose is to eliminate a threat to society.

koop · #42 12-13-2004, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

You are correct.

But they have never witnessed a REAL execution either.

I think making executions public would be worth it, even if it only deterred maybe 1 out of 100 "potential" murderers. That would mean one more innocent person would NOT be murdered. What is one life worth? What if it was YOUR loved one, or YOU, that was spared?

Regardless of whether it has any deterrent value or not, I support it on principle alone.

Mike

God I hate that "if it saves just one life" argument. If that were the standard we would all be wearing nerf suits, walking everywhere and eating a high fiber diet.

MTI · #43 12-13-2004, 08:30 PM

What a dilemna . . .

Right to Life: All life is precious and deserving of protection from a premature end.

Death With Dignity: The individual should be the sole decision maker as to when to teminate a life, when faced with certain, debilitating illness.

Death Penalty: Justice demands the taking of a life as punishment and a deterrent to others.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Ban the use of embryo cells that will be destroyed by fertility labs eventually.

Medical Marijuana: Can't use it, since it might lead you to worse drugs, assuming you survive your current illness.

KirkVining · #44 12-13-2004, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

I remember that story.....When I think of such cases, my vocabulary fails me. I cannot even think of words strong enough to describe how much it angers me that he was allowed to live, let alone be released to kill again!......

How ANYONE could argue against the death penalty in cases like that one is beyond my comprehension.

Like I said before....Death is too easy for monsters like that, but until we come up with something worse.....It'll have to do.

Mike

Two murders and a torture-rape left for dead first time out, one of the most horrible crimes in Ft Worth history, and the guy walks? The general consensus is his mother, a whack job in her own right who was probably having sex with McDuff since he was a kid, bribed a prison official $10,000 to spring him. The Rangers chased this prison official for years, busted him every time he jaywalked, because they knew he did it and couldn't prove it. I don't know whether they ever actually eventually nailed that prick. One hell of a scandal when it broke. Lots and lots of prison employees lost their jobs, and a lot of politicians got voted out of office over it. That case is the reason we are the most pro-death penalty state in the country.

mikemover · #45 12-13-2004, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by koop

God I hate that "if it saves just one life" argument. If that were the standard we would all be wearing nerf suits, walking everywhere and eating a high fiber diet.

Like I said, I have very little interest in its deterrent value.

I support it on principle. The only way to be 100% sure a murderer will not murder again is to relieve him of his breathing rights.

Mike