Death penalty for Newsome/Christian killer

[miditek]

Death penalty for one perpetrator in Christian/Newsome murders.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,542564,00.html

Well, at least one of the gang that raped, tortured, and killed these poor kids is getting iced- at least at some point. Too bad one of the other perps got life in prison, but Tennessee prisons are no country club like the federal institutions are.

Brushy Mountain State Penitentiary (shown below) recently closed, but there are other maximum security facilities within the state.



I'm sure it won't be long before Rev. Al and Jesse Jackass start to cry racism.

My biggest regret is that "Old Sparky" has been retired- I'd have gladly thrown the swith for them- and would have cranked up the setting to several megajoules.

[Intiaani]

Yeah, any of these by-the-book law institutions we have have their flaws. In Finland for example, you basically get the longest time in jail by robbing from a rich person. Murders and rapes are, like, a few years. Our "life sentence" goes basically that the president pardons the prisoner after 12 years at maximum - it's a damn extraordinary if someone's "inside the rock" - that's what we say anyway - for more than that, no matter how heinous the crimes. :I

And, of course, in any "civilized" law system, if the book doesn't state something illegal, it's legal, even though it was against everyone's morale. Just tell me, where is the rendition, the common sense, the JUST in the court?

If the criminal record will still wipe clean when you turn 90, I'm planning on robbing a bank openly when I'm something like 89,999. Then I just go, "I fooled you, system! MWAHAHA" and die of old age.

Some real punishment to real criminals I say. And how does somebody even know if death is a punishment or not is beyond me. Electric chairs on the other hand...

[icecab21]

death penalty to me is retarded. its more expensive than jail and it takes away from human potential to change and do positive things.

[Mehida]

miditek as always briging this shit to the forum.

[Shurik]

death penalty to me is retarded. its more expensive than jail and it takes away from human potential to change and do positive things.

How is it more expensive? It's one bullet/injection/few minutes on electric chair/noose and it's done. Keeping someone for a long period of time costs much more money - you have to feed the guy, dress him, guard him etc etc etc. Not all the crimes worth death penalty but there are some that do - murders and terrorism for example.

[icecab21]

California
Report of the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice
“The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California’s current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually.”

Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year.



The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year.

The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year.

The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

It’s not like they take them in the back alley and shoot them in the back of the head after the initial sentence or when they are caught before the trial.

[Carcass]

I am adamantly opposed to death penalty, under all circumstances. The beauty (or fault, as some would argue) of human rights is that they apply to all people. Even the worst of us.

EDIT: Perhaps a bit off-topic but this one gives me the chills. Great lyrics; no preaching, no politics.

[miditek]

Our "life sentence" goes basically that the president pardons the prisoner after 12 years at maximum - it's a damn extraordinary if someone's "inside the rock" - that's what we say anyway - for more than that, no matter how heinous the crimes.

There is a legal concept in Tennessee called "Truth In Sentencing", and it's been a fight for a long time. In other words, a life sentence should be just that. Life. Period. No parole. Ten years should be ten years, and not two or three.

I hate to hear that even murderers are only looking at twelve years in Finland. There are criminals here in the states that do less than that. In Tennessee, the average criminal serves about seven years for second degree murder or for manslaughter. First degree murder (premeditated) is a different story- although the law has been changed to read that premediation does not require extensive pre-planning or plotting.

miditek as always briging this shit to the forum.

But you neither have to read it, nor comment on it. Just do what I do- if I see something I don't like on TV (on the rare occasions that I watch it), I simply click over to the next channel.

death penalty to me is retarded. its more expensive than jail and it takes away from human potential to change and do positive things.

I'm really not worried about rehabiliation for monsters such as this. They can make their deals when they stand before God at the Resurrection.

I am adamantly opposed to death penalty, under all circumstances. The beauty (or fault, as some would argue) of human rights is that they apply to all people. Even the worst of us.

Being executed for a capital crime is not necessarily a violation of human rights. Criticizing a goverment- and then being executed; now that's certainly against the concept of human rights. But to commit what are essentially crimes against humanity, then that is a totally different story.

Even if executed by lethal injection, they simply go to sleep, and that's getting off a hell of a lot lighter than either Christian or Newsome did.

I feel that these idiots gave up any claim to human rights a long time ago after they so viciously violated their victims. I'm actually surprised that someone hasn't picked them off from a rooftop already, but I am sure that security around the courthouse is pretty tight, and the Knox County Sheriff's Department probably has SWAT team snipers on the roof- just to ensure that the defendants live long enough to make it through their respective trials and sentencing.

I'd be willing to bet you would at least rethink your position on this if a crime this horrendous had happened to members of your family.

[browneyedgirl]

I understand this case was a VERY brutal murder. Such as was the case of Carla faye Tucker(some years ago)who pickaxed a woman to death just for being present where another person was similarly killed. It was said these people begged for Carla&her boyfriend to hurry and finish the job because of the agony and horror of their brutality. The Chief of police said after his years on the force this was the first case where he actually vomited at the scene. This murder was done over motorcycle parts.

In cases like this I agree with the death penalty. These cases were coldblooded, and not done on the spur of the moment in a fit of anger. Carla also got the lethal injection and died peacefully, unlike her victims who were literally hacked to pieces.

[Ragehead91]

I have to agree with miditek here. I mean, did they care about the human rights of their victims when they violated and murdered them?

[Burning Reflection]

Humans have a strange sense of justice. It's as if revenge would cancel or even out the wrong originally done, but when all's said and done nothing really changes. A person can change with the right education as Icecab said, and I don't think lives should have a price tag, but the problem resided within the culprit earlier and goes much deeper than we can superficially see on the surface and may very well be rooted in the fabric of existence. I don't agree with the death penalty, but I do think that it's a great thing to see the person tried found legally guilty for such a horrendous crime. There was a similar story to this recently in my neighborhood; my best friend lives around where the abduction happened and I'm glad to hear when these type of people off of the streets

[NeverendingAbyss]

Most of the time (if not always) "wrongful" acts are simply the animal side of our brain. Some people have a different, say, hippocampus. Maybe it is swelled or not normally functioning, which leads to violent reactions and uncontrollable feelings. The human brain can sometimes go nuts, you know?

[AAAAAAAAAA]

I have to agree with miditek here. I mean, did they care about the human rights of their victims when they violated and murdered them?

No, they didn't care about their victims. But how does our society benefit from violating them in some twisted form of "revenge"? Isn't the purpose of punishment merely to deter crime, or is there some kind of bloodthirsty vengeance involved..? There are more constructive ways to mitigate our anger. Like bowflex.

I'm really not worried about rehabiliation for monsters such as this. They can make their deals when they stand before God at the Resurrection.

So we should apply your irrational views on religion to our justice system? Well, no offense intended. But Resurrection!? Come on! You seem to have a scientific mind from what I've read. How can you buy into all this? I always wanted to ask you: how can you be so sure?

Have you guys noticed that people are either ie. Christian (I BELIEVE in god), or atheist (I DON'T believe in god). Agnostic doesn't mean you don't know. It means you know you don't know. Does that make sense? I'm so skeptical about anyone who is so sure about what this world is about, and if there is or isn't a god.

I am adamantly opposed to death penalty, under all circumstances. The beauty (or fault, as some would argue) of human rights is that they apply to all people. Even the worst of us.

Exactly. Its like those people who say "I believe in freedom of speech...but when you start offending other people, you've crossed the line"

Most of the time (if not always) "wrongful" acts are simply the animal side of our brain. Some people have a different, say, hippocampus. Maybe it is swelled or not normally functioning, which leads to violent reactions and uncontrollable feelings. The human brain can sometimes go nuts, you know?

That's another very good point. At a certain level we are just biological organisms driven by impulses. So why make a brutal act like murder anything more than it is...someone's brain gone haywire? Sure we need to isolate these people to prevent further incidents, and of course punishment is necessary so we don't set a precedent for that kind of thing. But to overextend the significance of that action....requires a religious mind.

[browneyedgirl]

Most of the time (if not always) "wrongful" acts are simply the animal side of our brain. Some people have a different, say, hippocampus. Maybe it is swelled or not normally functioning, which leads to violent reactions and uncontrollable feelings. The human brain can sometimes go nuts, you know?

Well, Carla Faye Tuckers brain must have really went nuts because she testified at her trial that as she chopped up those 2 people she had multiple orgasms. :sick:

[NeverendingAbyss]

Most of the time (if not always) "wrongful" acts are simply the animal side of our brain. Some people have a different, say, hippocampus. Maybe it is swelled or not normally functioning, which leads to violent reactions and uncontrollable feelings. The human brain can sometimes go nuts, you know?

Well, Carla Faye Tuckers brain must have really went nuts because she testified at her trial that as she chopped up those 2 people she had multiple orgasms. :sick:

This kind of conversation reminds me of Phineas Gage, a charismatic leader who injured his frontal lobe of the brain with a rairoad rod and changed his attitude. Here's the article, it's really interesting-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage

[miditek]

Most of the time (if not always) "wrongful" acts are simply the animal side of our brain. Some people have a different, say, hippocampus. Maybe it is swelled or not normally functioning, which leads to violent reactions and uncontrollable feelings. The human brain can sometimes go nuts, you know?

Well, Carla Faye Tuckers brain must have really went nuts because she testified at her trial that as she chopped up those 2 people she had multiple orgasms. :sick:

This kind of conversation reminds me of Phineas Gage, a charismatic leader who injured his frontal lobe of the brain with a rairoad rod and changed his attitude. Here's the article, it's really interesting-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage

LOL- some old friends of mine used to have a band that was called "The Head of Phineas Gage".

Most of the time (if not always) "wrongful" acts are simply the animal side of our brain. Some people have a different, say, hippocampus. Maybe it is swelled or not normally functioning, which leads to violent reactions and uncontrollable feelings. The human brain can sometimes go nuts, you know?

Well, Carla Faye Tuckers brain must have really went nuts because she testified at her trial that as she chopped up those 2 people she had multiple orgasms. :sick:

This kind of conversation reminds me of Phineas Gage, a charismatic leader who injured his frontal lobe of the brain with a rairoad rod and changed his attitude. Here's the article, it's really interesting-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage

LOL- some old friends of mine used to have a band that was called "The Head of Phineas Gage".

No, they didn't care about their victims. But how does our society benefit from violating them in some twisted form of "revenge"? Isn't the purpose of punishment merely to deter crime, or is there some kind of bloodthirsty vengeance involved..? There are more constructive ways to mitigate our anger. Like bowflex.

It's not just about crime prevention- these crimes have already occurred. It's also about justice- making them pay for these horrible crimes, and to send a message that this type of barbaric behavior will not be tolerated and that if one chooses to act this way, they they will indeed forfeit their own lives.

Bloodthirsty vengeance would be executing not only the perpetrators, but also wiping out their familes as well. Executing them would not be violating them- although raping and torturing them before the execution would be though- which is precisely what they did to their victims. Personally, I'd favor a simple hanging on live television.

So we should apply your irrational views on religion to our justice system? Well, no offense intended. But Resurrection!? Come on! You seem to have a scientific mind from what I've read. How can you buy into all this? I always wanted to ask you: how can you be so sure?

I'm not applying my religious views to the criminal justice system. Perhaps, I should elaborate just a bit. I believe that in crimes that are this terrible, then the ultimate punishment must be administered by the state. If they are seeking forgiveness, then they need to ask God, not the judge or the jury.

As for having a scientific mind, I do. I work with an entire team of engineers that are about the sharpest group that I've ever worked with, and each of them are a dedicated Christian. Werner von Braun, for instance, was far more intelligent than me and all of my co-workers put together, but yet, he still believed in God. There is no conflict between science and religion.

Man cannot classify God like he would a species of plant or animal, and trying to prove that God does or does not exist via scientific method will drive most men insane- as many have tried. Each person has to determine whether or not they choose to follow God's plan for their own lives. Personally, I do not believe that there is such a thing as a true atheist.

A true atheist would simply laugh off the concept of God and would be too busy with their own life to waste time arguing about something that they did not believe in. There is an interesting article that I'll have to post sometime called "The God Gene"- meaning that the knowledge of God and Who He is, is actually hard-coded into our DNA.

But also, regarding your question, "how do I know for sure?" A close friend that is going through a difficult time (and is also a nominal believer) asked me the very same question the other day.

It's a simple question that cannot be easily answered. However, I can say that once a person has been in the presence of God, there is an unmistakable peace and sense of security that you will feel. A closeness with the Almighty, and an (from a mortal perception), an inkling of just how much He really does love us annoying litle half-animal/half-spirtual bipeds!

God will indeed reveal Himself to those that seek him- that is a biblical promise, and only one of over 7,000 promises that God makes in the Bible that applies to this lifetime alone. One of the clearest examples that I've seen God reveal Himself is in the lives of others who touch our own lives. Pastors, teachers, friends, parents, etc.- people that are dedicated to obeying God and following His will- and while it may be hard to realize this- you (the reader) are at the very top of God's agenda and His concerns, and that He Himself wants to be loved as much and more than any human.

It's a pretty awesome thought, the Bible even says that "the very hairs on your head are numbered.", which means that God is intimately and accutely interested in every single aspect of your life. I've watched Biblical prophecy unfold before my very eyes even in my lifetime, and I have to admit that it is nothing short of astonishing.

God has also protected me from what should have been certain death on more than a few occasions- too many to be merely coincidental. Statistically speaking, I should be as dead as a doornail right now- considering how wild I was when I was younger.

I don't know if this answered your question accurately, or if it has led to more questions still, but I do hope that at the very least it will help you think more about God and how He relates to your own life- essentially this means everyone here.

[AAAAAAAAAA]

It's also about justice- making them pay for these horrible crimes, and to send a message that this type of barbaric behavior will not be tolerated and that if one chooses to act this way, they they will indeed forfeit their own lives.

To some, torture would be an appropriate form of justice. We could set our death row inmates on fire, or make them read Timo Tolkki's book. The question is, where do we draw the line? I think it would be more productive to send them to some kind of jail-factory where they could slowly work off their debts to society (under prison-like conditions, of course). To me killing, solves absolutely nothing and reflects a total lack of restraint; there are many more efficient ways to make an example out of a criminal.

I'm not sure if I believe in good vs. evil. People's brain's are wired up in different ways and some people do stupid things. A killer commits an evil act, and justifies it, based on the tools he is given by "god", right? Isn't there a physiological explanation for why people do the things they do? Its a shame that the crime occurs but is there really any point to applying punishment for any reason other than prevention, isolation, etc? Justice for the sake of justice...it seems very primitive to me.

Werner von Braun, for instance, was far more intelligent than me and all of my co-workers put together, but yet, he still believed in God. There is no conflict between science and religion.

Man cannot classify God like he would a species of plant or animal, and trying to prove that God does or does not exist via scientific method will drive most men insane- as many have tried.

Throughout mankind, how many people have been religious at one point or another? Lets just say ten billion. The amount of different faiths and beliefs, most of which are totally contradictory, is probably in the hundreds. That means that, even if there is a god, 99% of religious people would be totally mischaracterizing him. They can't all be right, obviously!

Why, from the ancient Egyptians to the Greeks to the Native Americans, have different groups (even those in isolation) believed in a higher power? Because as NeoTolkki™ quoted Vonnegut, adhering to an established belief system welcomes us into an artificial family where our existence is suddenly meaningful, everything we do has eternal and divine aspirations, and we all have that warm-fuzzy feeling inside. It gives us hope...but under what foundation is that hope built upon? Its the same kind of hope that "obongo" has given the American people, right? Just step right up and solve our problems. I don't care how you're going to do it, we believe in you. That means for the next few months I can sit back, prop my legs on the table and know I'm in good hands.

God will indeed reveal Himself to those that seek him- that is a biblical promise, and only one of over 7,000 promises that God makes in the Bible that applies to this lifetime alone.

Why are 80% of people who are born in India practicing Hinduism? And 78% of Americans are Christians. If God's existence is something that you feel, why is it that people who are born in this hemisphere "feel" one god, and those on the other side of the earth "feel" another? Isn't it obvious that something is completely and utterly ridiculous here? Surely god does not reveal himself exclusively to people born on certain parts of the earth.

If our concept of Christianity is the correct model, that means all the Hindu's are wrong. And they can believe their religion just as adamantly as you, and insist through the same reasons as you, that their belief system is correct. I know you have a scientific mind; don't these idiosyncrasies bother you? Isn't it more likely that religion is just arbitrary nonsense built on the premise of wishful thinking?

God has also protected me from what should have been certain death on more than a few occasions- too many to be merely coincidental. Statistically speaking, I should be as dead as a doornail right now- considering how wild I was when I was younger.

Well, thousands of Americans died in the Iraq war, and many of them were very religious, without a doubt. It would be inexplicable that God protected you, but not them. Surely you're not implying that the automobile fatality rate for Christians is significantly lower than that of atheists, for example...we can easily debunk this "god-protections" myth by just examining the mortality rate of Christians vs. Atheists and I find it highly unlikely that there would be a significant discrepancy not explained through socioeconomic factors.

I can definitely understand how someone can be religious. How great it would feel, to know there is more to life. But I can't understand how someone who is a firm believer in science and reason can adhere to a well established, arbitrary belief system which contradicts the other 99% of religions around the world.

[NeonVomit]

God has also protected me from what should have been certain death on more than a few occasions- too many to be merely coincidental. Statistically speaking, I should be as dead as a doornail right now- considering how wild I was when I was younger.

He also chose to protect Hitler during WWI. In one incident, his entire platoon was wiped out by shellfire. Hitler himself wasn't even scratched. The rest is history.

He also chose not to protect my 6 year old cousin from leukaemia. She died, having harmed no one.

Just sayin'.

[Carcass]

I am adamantly opposed to death penalty, under all circumstances. The beauty (or fault, as some would argue) of human rights is that they apply to all people. Even the worst of us.

Being executed for a capital crime is not necessarily a violation of human rights. Criticizing a goverment- and then being executed; now that's certainly against the concept of human rights. But to commit what are essentially crimes against humanity, then that is a totally different story.

Even if executed by lethal injection, they simply go to sleep, and that's getting off a hell of a lot lighter than either Christian or Newsome did.

I feel that these idiots gave up any claim to human rights a long time ago after they so viciously violated their victims. I'm actually surprised that someone hasn't picked them off from a rooftop already, but I am sure that security around the courthouse is pretty tight, and the Knox County Sheriff's Department probably has SWAT team snipers on the roof- just to ensure that the defendants live long enough to make it through their respective trials and sentencing.

It is my conviction that we should not kill in circumstances where it is not necessary. As a sentence it solves nothing, it hardly redeems the worst of crimes. What kind of sentence would?

Even the worst criminals were born human, that is enough for me. Something happened along the way. Or maybe they were just 'created' that way.

I'd be willing to bet you would at least rethink your position on this if a crime this horrendous had happened to members of your family.

Maybe. Would you rethink your stance if an inmate on death row asked for your forgiveness? Or what if it was somebody from your family on death row? Would you be watching the hanging on TV? I can think of situations that would make you rethink all your values and beliefs. But this is all hypothetical bullshit.

[Stratowarius]

Thought crime does not entail death: thought

crime is death.

George Orwell

[NeonVomit]

I am adamantly opposed to death penalty, under all circumstances. The beauty (or fault, as some would argue) of human rights is that they apply to all people. Even the worst of us.

Being executed for a capital crime is not necessarily a violation of human rights. Criticizing a goverment- and then being executed; now that's certainly against the concept of human rights. But to commit what are essentially crimes against humanity, then that is a totally different story.

Even if executed by lethal injection, they simply go to sleep, and that's getting off a hell of a lot lighter than either Christian or Newsome did.

I feel that these idiots gave up any claim to human rights a long time ago after they so viciously violated their victims. I'm actually surprised that someone hasn't picked them off from a rooftop already, but I am sure that security around the courthouse is pretty tight, and the Knox County Sheriff's Department probably has SWAT team snipers on the roof- just to ensure that the defendants live long enough to make it through their respective trials and sentencing.

It is my conviction that we should not kill in circumstances where it is not necessary. As a sentence it solves nothing, it hardly redeems the worst of crimes. What kind of sentence would?

Even the worst criminals were born human, that is enough for me. Something happened along the way. Or maybe they were just 'created' that way.

I'd be willing to bet you would at least rethink your position on this if a crime this horrendous had happened to members of your family.

Maybe. Would you rethink your stance if an inmate on death row asked for your forgiveness? Or what if it was somebody from your family on death row? Would you be watching the hanging on TV? I can think of situations that would make you rethink all your values and beliefs. But this is all hypothetical bullshit.

Extra bonus question: what if you or someone close to you was falsely convicted of murder? You seem to hold the justice system in such low regard, so you should recognise that it's entirely possible.

The biggest problem I have with the death penalty is that it's irreversible. There have been cases of people convicted of murder and sentenced to life, only for new evidence to come to light and for them to be released; sometimes after ten or fifteen years. I really don't think its inconceivable that innocent people are on death row right now.

It all boils down to this: is it better to put an innocent man to death than to let a guilty man go free?

I'm not clued up on the legal system in the US so I'll just talk about how it works here; the US uses a Common Law system that's derived from the system here so I imagine it's not too far off.

What one has to look at is the burden of proof. In civil cases the burden of proof has to be in favour of the plaintiff in order for a ruling to be made in his or her favour. Civil cases are virtually never decided by a jury, and everything is done in order to prevent them being brought into court in the first place; court is the last resort in the hope that the parties will resolve their differences in other ways and save themselves and everyone else time and money. Basically, if the burden of proof is slightly in favour of one party or the other, that's where the decision will go and that is that.

In criminal cases however, the burden of proof has to be 'beyond any reasonable doubt'. That's the guideline. Crown Court (where serious crimes are tried) juries are instructed by judges so that if there is even slightly not enough proof to convict someone, they walk.

This is due to it being seen this way: the ultimate faliure of the justice system is putting an innocent man in prison. It is not letting a guilty man go free. Everything is done to ensure that innocent people are not put away.

Now of course, there is massive debate about this matter. Conviction rates remain low (but the actual percentage of cases that actually go to trial here is something stupidly low like 5-10%, the rest of the times a guilty plea is entered) and of course guilty people walk, it would be foolish to assume otherwise.

One could claim this causes a greater danger to society than putting innocent people away, but on the other hand what would cause more damage; the family of a murder victim not recieving closure, or an innocent person having their lives (and that of their own family) completely ruined and the case being closed while at the same time the guilty person got away in any case?

Which is the greater risk? Well, the legal system is skewed to protect the defendant. 'Innocent in the eyes of the until proven guilty' and all that. (of course you get crimes of strict liability but that's a whooole other can of worms)

[hiro23]

I'd like to think that I'm not a vengeful person however I haven't had anyone in my family brutally murdered. I mean I do see both sides of the argument, on the one hand who are we to judge whether someone should live or die however at the same time is it really fair to say that if someone brutally kills one of our loved one's that we should just accept it?

One line I really liked in "the dark knight" was "Some people just want to see the world burn", I mean how do you reason with someone who clearly doesn't want to be reasoned with, I mean what if it's something as simple as the person gets their jollies off of killing someone? if that person was to attack you or someone you loved wouldn't it be fair to defend yourself?

[NeonVomit]

I'd like to think that I'm not a vengeful person however I haven't had anyone in my family brutally murdered. I mean I do see both sides of the argument, on the one hand who are we to judge whether someone should live or die however at the same time is it really fair to say that if someone brutally kills one of our loved one's that we should just accept it?

That's precisely the reason why law enforcement agents/lawyers/judges who have anything personal in relation to a particular case are barred from having anything to do with it. They will not be able to do their jobs properly and will not be even handed when it comes to dealing with suspects.

You know what they say... 'A Conservative is a Liberal who's just been mugged.'

One line I really liked in "the dark knight" was "Some people just want to see the world burn", I mean how do you reason with someone who clearly doesn't want to be reasoned with, I mean what if it's something as simple as the person gets their jollies off of killing someone?

Good question. Society says to lock them up to keep the rest of us safe. What is the 'right' thing to do?

if that person was to attack you or someone you loved wouldn't it be fair to defend yourself?

The right to defend yourself from anyone attacking you is inshrined pretty much everywhere.

[Intiaani]

I only read the first couple of posts but I should say that "human rights" are so contextual and hazy you should give up using them as some defensive argument. They're so not convention, at least for serious criminals. And I agree with miditek on lengths of sentences.

[NeonVomit]

I only read the first couple of posts but I should say that "human rights" are so contextual and hazy you should give up using them as some defensive argument. They're so not convention, at least for serious criminals. And I agree with miditek on lengths of sentences.

There are more issues that have been raised that don't base themselves on human rights.

[browneyedgirl]

I hate to sound like a Terry Goodkind novel, but when these murderers and hardcore criminals are shown extreme mercy, it shows people are embracing death rather than life. Showing extreme mercy toward a criminal like this shows that a person is enabling the criminal, even subconciously.
(like hiro said)there are lots of criminals who do get a thrill out of harming others, or at least have no bad feelings about their acts. Anyone can make a mistake, get angry and harm or even kill someone. Thats not what miditek or some others here are referring to. They are referring to coldblooded people who have no conscience or show no remorse in the heinous acts they do.

[NeverendingAbyss]

Well, yeah. The law has to be strict in the killing of a human being. I support life sentence but I don't like the death penalty. That is so 1800s
As much as I would like some criminals to be tortured by the Bowflex, it's just not ethical. Eye for an eye and the whole world will be blind... but... there has to be a punishment to tell the rest that murder is wrong.
It's just something that I'm throwing out from a laptop (not used to it yet)

[Shurik]

Here's something that happened couple of weeks ago here in Israel:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... 2FShowFull

So tell me please, why this freak, who butchered an entire family including 3 year old girl and 4 month old baby boy, should be kept alive? Why my tax money should feed this thing for another 35-40 years that it will spend in prison?

[icecab21]

http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=13290

here is a interesting article.

Moreover, capital punishment is regarded by Judaism as a favor for the capital sinner, a form of atonement and redemption. Ordinary murderers are allowed to achieve atonement for their souls in their execution. Only especially vile murderers — such as a false witness whose lies are discovered after the person who was framed has been executed, or a man who sacrifices both his son and his daughter to the pagan god Molokh — are denied execution because they are regarded as beyond redemption through capital punishment. Again, execution preserves human dignity, it does not defile it.

it seems with this logic it would be more of a statement to not have capital punishment for a person who commits violent crime.

Opponents argue that it would be dehumanizing to ask an Israeli to act as an executioner, as the one who would push the button or pull the switch. They worry it would be hard to find someone to play the executioner. My guess, however, is that the number of volunteers for any such switch-pulling would be so large that the Israeli government could balance the budget by auctioning off lotto chances to pull it. Personally, I would offer family members of victims of terrorism first "dibs."

the guy is pretty much having multiple orgasms over thoughts of making it a business to kill people.
i do worry about the concept of people being happy do kill someome. a duty, ok, but not a pleasure.

[NeonVomit]

Here's something that happened couple of weeks ago here in Israel:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... 2FShowFull

So tell me please, why this freak, who butchered an entire family including 3 year old girl and 4 month old baby boy, should be kept alive? Why my tax money should feed this thing for another 35-40 years that it will spend in prison?

Why should he die a quick and relatively painless death instead of living in a cage? I guess in cases like this, Sharia law has something going for it.

Besides it's not cheap, putting someone to death.