To those of you that don't believe in the death penalty.
 

[url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8258745/[/url]

[quote]FRESNO, Calif. - Marcus Wesson, the domineering patriarch of a clan bred through incest, was convicted Friday of murdering nine of his children, whose bodies were found in a bloody pile last year at the end of a police standoff.

Wesson’s conviction on nine counts of first-degree murder makes him eligible for the death penalty. He also was found guilty on all 14 counts of raping and molesting seven of his underage daughters and nieces.[/quote]

Fry that mother****er.
__________________
[b][url=http://autoinsurances.wearecares.net]Best Car Insurance[/url] | [url=autoprotection.wearecares.net]Auto Protection Today[/url] | [url=trade-in.wearecares.net]FREE Trade-In Quote[/url][/b]

Hey now.

There's the tiny possibility he [i]could[/I] be innocent so we'll allow him 20yrs of appeals and the opportunity to waste thousands upon thousands of tax dollars to keep him alive. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=IS2Scooby]Fry that mother*****r.[/QUOTE]

Twice.

Fry him and many others

Wouldn't it be cool if you could practice your surgery skills on him?

I'd of course do the obvious stuff first. Cut off an appendage. Allow him to bleed out to near death and then see how long it would take him to regenerate his blood naturally, as well as monitor what effects that would have on him. I'd be interested to see how he'd react if I were hammer a wooden stake in his mouth, through his neck, ensuring that I 'miss' his spine; then I'd just leave it there and note how his body sends antibodies to that spike. Then pick some non-lethal parts of his body (nutsack, hand, kneecap...) and observe the effects of different caliber gunshot wounds. It'd be neat to cut an artery and by using the velocity and trajectory of his blood, create a large mural over the course of a few weeks, obviously not allowing him to bleed out (or pass out.) He wouldn't need that penis anymore, right? I'd imagine that based on 'punishment fitting the crime' (at least in my mind) he wouldn't have major issues in getting denutted like livestock (my father used a set of bolt cutters when he was a kid) as penitance for his crimes.

Sorry for the ramble.

I agree.

But human rights advocates would be all over you. I can see them making Dr. Mengele comparisons. For the record 18D's do this to pigs in the medical course,

They could test out new weapons on him like they used to do to criminals in fuedal japan.

If there was no death penalty, this guy would have a worse experience than being humanely euthanized (being killed by the US judicial system is painless...PAINLESS!!!!). I say put him in with the inmates who hate child-killers. Better punishment, cheaper, and it doesn't insite the type of "kill em all" attitude that has tainted this very thread.



If I had comitted a heinous crime, I'd rather die than live life in prison. If I had a family member brutally murdered, I'd rather see the perp suffer for the rest of his life in a federall-pound-him-in-the-ass-penn. Why do we consider the death penalty to be a better punishment than life in prison? Because people are selfish and vengful. If you want to kill people who have done you wrong by killing, then they have defeated your character and you are now as bad as they. The death penalty is wrong, no matter how brutal a crime is.

MVWRX:

While I agree with the spirit of your idea, but the one thing that you failed to mention is that once the perp is dead, there's a 100% guarantee that the perp will never kill again.
If a mass murderer is sent to prison, there's a chance, albeit small, that he/she could kill again.

Just a thought.

That's true, but I'm suggesting life w/o any chance of EVER getting out. That way, if they do kill again, it will be someone who has killed and therefore it is part of the punishment (if you kill someone, you go to jail forever and could be killed by another killer).

[QUOTE=MVWRX]That's true, but I'm suggesting life w/o any chance of EVER getting out.[/QUOTE]

But you forget it costs thousands upon thousands of taxpayers' money to keep him alive for life. Why not just kill him off and be done with it? Besides, nobody ever thinks of the families they have effected. A lot of them do not get closure until that person dies. Why wait?

I've done considerable research into the subject, and under the current system it costs about 100 times as much to sentence someone to death and go through with it than it does to sentence them to life and house and feed them for the rest of their lives. And a death penalty that has no option for appeal is wrong for the following reason: Humans are fallable. Therefore all human decisions can be wrong. Therefore killing someone swiftly after a conviction (the only way death is cheaper than life in prison), there WILL be times when innocent people are killed by the state. It is my opinion that the state should NEVER wrongly kill someone, and so either we use the current system or one where there is no capitol punishment. Since the current system is more expensive than a system with no death penalty, and life in prison is moraly and effectively a better punishment, I believe that a system without the death penalty is the most cost effective AND works the best to punish criminals.

[QUOTE=MVWRX]I've done considerable research into the subject, and under the current system it costs about 100 times as much to sentence someone to death and go through with it than it does to sentence them to life and house and feed them for the rest of their lives. And a death penalty that has no option for appeal is wrong for the following reason: Humans are fallable. Therefore all human decisions can be wrong. Therefore killing someone swiftly after a conviction (the only way death is cheaper than life in prison), there WILL be times when innocent people are killed by the state. It is my opinion that the state should NEVER wrongly kill someone, and so either we use the current system or one where there is no capitol punishment. Since the current system is more expensive than a system with no death penalty, and life in prison is moraly and effectively a better punishment, I believe that a system without the death penalty is the most cost effective AND works the best to punish criminals.[/QUOTE]


Being fallible is ridiculous logic when you're going to hold them till they die anyways. If they’re so innocent then why subject them to the hands of other individuals on death row as punishment or potential death? Makes no sense. The actual execution isn't as expensive as death row. You see, the idea of death row is the problem that makes it more expensive. I'm not sure how expensive the poison used in the lethal injection or the electricity used in throwing the switch is. Add that cost to the amount of a regular funeral and it doesn't come close to the cost or sustaining the life of an individual in a maximum security facility. Unless I’m missing something, it's the own states fault for not using a $.25 bullet. That's another thread though. Maybe you can give us figures regarding fees and frivolous red-tape charges implemented by people like yourself in order to make it a non-worthwhile tactic?

I firmly believe you shouldn't be allowed to hold the entire system ransom on the idea that someone could be innocent after being convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't make any sense, is a huge burden on funds (food, clothing, medicine, security, security jobs) and prison overpopulation, doesn't help conclude the grieving process for families, and makes our judicial system seem incompetent (it is).

This isn't what makes me the maddest though. What makes me furious is that this happens after someone is found with blood on their hands. Wtf is that? Marcus Wesson killed 9 children that were found in a pile directly after a police standoff and you think that's a question of fallibility? Wow. And this isn't the exception either. Most convicts on death row are their for a reason. Most of them were found with blood on their hands for heinous crimes which are accompanied with undeniable proof and witnesses. Again, a question of fallibility? Are you mad?

And I have thought of the families that are affected. They should realize that giving the perp death is, in fact, setting him free of his responsiblities and any pain that he should have to suffer. Furthermore, closure should come from the realization that a loved one can still be loved and valued in death (like how people reach closure from accidental deaths), not from the satisfaction of the dark urge to kill one who has killed.

The death penalty is barbaric, archaic, and counterproductive, not to mention expensive as all hell. This should not be a left vs right issue, this is a logic vs tradition issue.

The anger that you feel from what this man has done is not a good thing. So why use that anger to decide on his fate? Instead, realize what would cause him the most anguish and suffering for what he has done while at the same time reducing the cost of his punishment.

Aside from the falliblity argument, which I am very firm on because as I said the government should NOT be in a position to ever even come close to murdering an innocent person, the death penalty still doesn't make sense.

Money wise and punishment wise, it is best to abolish capitol punishment.
I believe that you are suggesting that we should have swift action against those who have been convicted of capitol crimes.

But what about these 119 people:
[url]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=412&scid=6[/url]


My main argument is this and should appeal to all people regardless of their political or religious leanings: life in prison sucks worse than being put to sleep.

[QUOTE=MVWRX]The death penalty is barbaric, archaic, and counterproductive, not to mention expensive as all hell. This should not be a left vs right issue, this is a logic vs tradition issue.[/QUOTE]

It's not a left vs right issue.

I want you to find out where the money is going to make it more expensive.

It has to be coming from the maintaining of the prisoners in maximum security, death row facility. It cannot possibly be from the cost of execution and disposal of the body UNLESS people like yourself have implemented redtape fees to make it a non-worthwhile tactic, you see?

Besides that, the idea of the death penalty being barbaric and archaic is personal. How is it counterproductive though? If it has anything to do with the aforementioned paragraph then of course it is!

The costs are from the appeals process. Not from housing, killing, feeding, etc...

But without the appeals process, the 119 people that have been pardoned in the past quarter century would have been wrongfully killed by the gov't. So it is in some way neccesary.

Unless there is no death penalty. LWOP, no appeals. Cheap. Sucks for the perp (worse than death IMHO). No civil rights issue. Nothing, just a punished perp at a cheaper cost.

[QUOTE=MVWRX]Aside from the falliblity argument, which I am very firm on because as I said the government should NOT be in a position to ever even come close to murdering an innocent person, the death penalty still doesn't make sense.[/QUOTE]

So how exactly is the [i]Government[/i] murdering an innocent person when they've been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their [i]peers[/i]? :confused: Ahhhh.... this is where the dilemma and lack of competence lies, you see?

[QUOTE=MVWRX]The costs are from the appeals process. Not from housing, killing, feeding, etc...[/QUOTE]

So if the cost is from the appeals process then how is that in direct correlation with the death penalty and not the entire judicial process? :confused:

[QUOTE=Salty]Besides that, the idea of the death penalty being barbaric and archaic is personal.[/QUOTE]
While it is opinion, the US is the only '1st world' nation to use the death penalty. So it's not just my own personal opinion.




[QUOTE=Salty]How is it counterproductive though? If it has anything to do with the aforementioned paragraph then of course it is![/QUOTE]

The reason it is counterproductive is because it does not deture capitol crime. Murder went down drastically in EVERY country that had the death penalty and then abolished it (the data on Canada is most striking).

[QUOTE=Salty]So if the cost is from the appeals process then how is that in direct correlation with the death penalty and not the entire judicial process? :confused:[/QUOTE]


Because the cost of appeals for death penalty cases is drastically higher than that of appeals for LWOP cases.

[QUOTE=Salty]So how exactly is the [i]Government[/i] murdering an innocent person when they've been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their [i]peers[/i]? :confused: Ahhhh.... this is where the dilemma and lack of competence lies, you see?[/QUOTE]


Because jurys can be wrong. I've already gone over this part, 119 people have been excused before being murdered by the gov't. And, yes, it would have been murder since they were found to be INNOCENT before they were released but after they were 'convicted beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers'

And even if you use symantics to show that it's the judicial system, not the death penalty, that is at fault then look at it this way Salty: the judicial system isn't gonna change that much too quickly. We're gonna have jurys, and they're gonna be wrong sometimes. We're also going to have appeals lawyers, and they're gonna be right sometimes. So, within the judicial system that we have (and isn't going anywhere), the death penalty is not the best way to deal with capitol crime. So we should axe it.

Like I said, this is logic vs tradition. We could still cut off hands for stealing, or gouge out eyes for perving out on unsuspecting naked girls, but we don't. We ditched those traditions because we saw that they are barbaric as a society. The death penalty is really no different.

Hamurabi may have been powerful, but I would never want to live in a country where his code was upheald. The death penalty is a relic of his code.

[QUOTE=MVWRX]Because the cost of appeals for death penalty cases is drastically higher than that of appeals for LWOP cases.[/QUOTE]

So wouldn't this be an argument regarding redtape rather than one that's against the death penalty?

[QUOTE=Salty]So wouldn't this be an argument regarding redtape rather than one that's against the death penalty?[/QUOTE]


Already addressed this in post 22.

[QUOTE=MVWRX]Because jurys can be wrong. I've already gone over this part, 119 people have been excused before being murdered by the gov't. And, yes, it would have been murder since they were found to be INNOCENT before they were released but after they were 'convicted beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers'[/QUOTE]

It doesn't matter whether or not the jury is wrong! If there's enough evidence to for conviction then that's all that matters. This is how it's supposed to work. What's the point of *****-footing when this is the exact purpose of a partial jury? Has the whole world gone crazy?!

I still don’t understand why you can’t make an exception for people like Marcus Wesson - a man who undoubtedly has blood on his hands.

Because I don't believe in exceptions, ever, when it comes to a judicial system. Hell, that's the perpose of a judicial system...no exeptions, everyone answers to the same system.


To me, it matters very much if the jury is wrong. I'm shocked that it doesn't matter to you.

Our system is set up to convict the person who did a crime, not the one who looks like they may have done the crime. Someone who premeditates a murder may also think about how to have evidence NOT point to them. So, according to you, they shouldn't be convicted? Because there isn't enough evidense to convict them? C'mon Salty.

I think you may have gone crazy. Don't you care at all about the actual truth? Or just about the procedings of a trial. What about OJ? Your posts make it sound like you'd rather noone question the system, appeal, or be freed at the cost of innocent people being imprisoned and killed. What if you were convicted of a murder you didn't do? Would you just say "Hey, kill me, there was enough evidense to convict. Do it quick, though, so I don't cost the gov't any more money."

I doubt it.






Maybe this guy desearves to die. Maybe he desearves to suffer more than death. But why kill him if it a)costs more, and b)it doesn't cause him to suffer as much as he should for what he's done

And again, if this guy makes you so angry you want him to die, that's your own fault. Literally, it is a personal fault to have someones actions enrage you to the point that you want them dead. I'm not religious (as you know), and even as an 'atheist heathen' I know that that type of vengful thinking is one of humanities worse trates and should be avoided.