No Death Penalty for Sniper....

1) DNA blueprinting wasn't perfected 23 years ago.

2) They can't kill other prisoners, guards, or in the case of McDuff other 18 years old girls. In Texas, life is only 40 years min. then they can get parole. In the 70's when the Supremes ruled the Death Penalty was unconstitutional, McDuff got life. Prisons filled up, courts again ruled that prisoners had rights, lots of paroles where handed out, McDuff was set free. They only know of three that he killed and think there were more. One was just washing her car in Austin, if McDuff was excuted then she would of been protected as he couldn't choose her as he couldn't drive by the car wash. Texas put him to death the second time around.

Reality check, these scumbags enjoy killing, causing pain. If you think that they only need a hug to fix the boo-boo then go hug them all you want. Just watch for the guard with the needle.

David

 

Where in this thread did you see anyone suggest that these guys need to be hugged?

 

...because "revenge" is antiethical to an ordered society. It precludes the concept of "Justice".
Revenge involves retribution for personal injury or wrong (real or imagined). As someone who has not been personally injured in this, it would be impossible for me to take vengeance on these two. As it would for you. It's also why the law doesn't allow "revenge" as justification for correcting alleged wrongs.
Part of the cost (and benefit) of living in an ordered society (i.e. one ruled by law) is that we "give up" or hand over our right of personal revenge to the government who then acts (or is supposed to act) as an impartial arbiter to mete out punishment to athose who break the society's rules (i.e. laws).
No.....revenge is a bad thing. It's directly counter to any system of justice. It preempts the right of a society as a whole to decide on appropriate punishment. And it trashes the concept of due process (a very bad thing).

Let the government present it's case against these two. And let them answer to the charges and the evidence. And if a jury finds the government has mad a convincing/persuasive case, let them decide the guilt and the punishment.

 

I'm sorry sir, butt if you continue to make sense and post coherent, well-thought-out messages such as this, your posting privileges may well be revoked!

 

As eloquent as this sounds, it still supposes the government diposes "justice" in an appropriate way. A man kills 11 people and gets to live? That IS NOT justice. There is no perfect way.

Convicting innocents is truly a problem and makes the governments "job" of "justice" complicated. No system will ever be perfect, but ours sometimes just doesn't seem to be a deterent.

It resembles war. We accept grudgingly that there will be collateral damage and civilians will die, but we feel war is worth the sacrifice. (Another argument altogether) Same goes for the death penalty.

Eye for an eye!

Lee Fields
LEEnSV #884

 

as devil's advocate:
Why not take the "eye for an eye" and revenge justification further? If these really are the fundamental principles of our criminal justice system, then one should argue that our "civilized" methods of execution and incarceration fall way short of the goals. Shouldn't we kill our convicted killers in a manner similiar to the crimes? Shouldn't rapists for example, suffer some sort of sanctioned sexual violence at the hands of the state?

What I wonder is, how is it that many other countries who share our legal traditions have abolished the death penalty? Perhaps it is just a matter of time before they start to crave the revenge that we supposedly can't do without and bring it back on an American scale. Personally, I hope they don't.

 

I must have missed this requirement in the Constitution. Where does it come from?

 

When rapists are incarcerated in a state prison, I would bet that most of them are recipients of sexual violence, albeit not state sanctioned. Rapists and child molesters do not do any easy time in prison, so I hear. Maybe Eric has dissertated on this.

 

You know, I thought I saw a grassy knoll in one of those newscasts! Really, Emmett. Patsys? Don't think so. They have a pretty ironclad case against these dudes. They are going to pay.

 

No, it's just the way I feel about it. I just believe the punishment should at least be equal to the crime. You think the snipers should get better treatment than thier victims?

I'd like to see them run around in the woods in the dark with about 4 sniper teams hunting them and let them feel the terror for awhile....

Lee Fields
LEEnSV #884 Ex

 

No... but child abusers & molesters are at the bottom of the prison social ladder, often are housed in an isolated setting for their own protection (called PC, Protective Custody, also referred to as "Punk City").
I say let Bubba have his way with them, no grease or kiss either

 

Lets assume you are right about rapists (ignoring the cases where the rapist ends up actually becoming the aggressor, not the victim of prison rape). If you believe prison rape is a good thing (in effect, further providing punishment and deterence outside of state control) would you argue that the state should encourage prison rape? Perhaps by pairing criminals convicted of violent crimes in cells with known (and more powerful) prison rapists on a case by case basis?

If you believe the phenomena is a bad thing, you may know that there are pending bills in the House and Senate trying to address
ways to decrease the frequency of prison rape.

 

In this case is it fair to say the death penalty had no deterrent value?

 

Never intended to imply that I thought it was a "good thing" or fair treatment for the nature of their crimes; just that it happens. Seems like the fact that it does occur so frequently would also be even more of a deterrent to committing these crimes, but I guess it isn't. Only thing troubling to me is, the legislators going to bat for these convicted felons should, IMHO, be proposing bills that address the rights of the victims and the victims' families. I'm all for the "boot-camp" style of prison. Not the "country-club" style, where the prison population gets exercise rooms, cable TV, 3 squares, etc. If I were running things, solitary cells and no interaction with the other prisoners would be the custom. Soup, bread and water. Prisoners rights? Nope. They gave up their rights when they proved their unworthiness to society.

 

Probably in this case, and definitely in the case of Al Quaida.

 

Why would you assume that I believe that the scum sucking, low life, bottom feeding, murderers should get better tretment than their victums?

Or even as humane?

 

Nope, had these two been convicted of prior offenses against humanity of this magnitude, and executed, it would have damn sure deterred then from killing anyone else.

Screw revenge, justification, etc. The real law, like it or not, is the same one I learned 34 years ago: You tryin' to kill me and mine, it's up to me to kill your a$$, and RIGHT F'n now!

Reality, deal with it.

 

If they dont get the DP, at least this would make them suffer at best.