U.S. Executes another Murderer

I'm not turning this into something political. But i believe the punishment was long due. Regardless of his race. He kidnapped a young couple in 1999, put them in their trunk, shot both in the head, killing the husband instantly, wife was still alive. Then set the car on fire.

Folks, it's simple. Treat everyone the same and there will be no issues. In my line of work, everyone is treated the same. I have as many issues with whites as i do with any other race.

I'm currently waiting to go to court over a shooting i was involved in over 1.5 years ago. He is a white male and yes he tried to kill that night. One officer shot before suspect was shot.

Do the crime, due the time and/ or punishment. Sarge

I'm all for the death penalty. I think the appeal process takes way to long. One appeal and done is what it should be. Not an appeal for every objection in the trial. Bunch them together, get it over and let justice prevail.

How would you feel convicting someone of murder and sending them to death row. Years go by and of course they fight it and scream innocence. They are put to death, and then, the truth comes out and they truly were innocent. It has happened.

I’m all for hard labor, make life . It’s not that I don’t think the death penalty is not just punishment, it is. But man is involved and mistakes happen.

There is NO perfect system, non. The day you are born is the first day of you dyeing. We are all going to dye sooner or later. I think our system is getting better with DNA and other tools we have today. But to me locking a person up and is cruel and unusual punishment.
What these people do to each other can get real bad, day after day. JMO

Not only should there only be one appeal but the death sentence should be expanded. Anyone convicted of any form of pedophilia should also go to the gallows. I also think that lethal injection should be outlawed. Bring back the chair or public hangings. Lethal injection is way to easy.

I agree and the reason I don't have a problem with long prison terms prior to execution.

Instead of getting mad at the criminals we need to examine the system that executes the innocent unintentionally. One thing that makes us great is the concept of innocent till proven guilty. This is unique in the world even today. The purpose of this is to get all the info to make a just decision. Humans are infallible including juries. Give them time to make appeals and present all positions as time uncovers more. Then....the execution can happen in a better conscience.

I think DAs should be held accountable, if a person is wrongly convicted. There are too many times that a DA gets a hard on for a person, and sees no other suspect than the one presented. As mentioned, we don't have a perfect system, but there also isn't much of a penalty for habitually breaking the law either! Glad I don't make these decisions!

I don't think many on here realize the way the appeals system works in our courts. This is the major problem with people being in prison 20 years before the sentence is carried out. The appeal process needs to be streamlined. They can still have all of the appeals, just do them all at once.

I have no problem convicting based on the evidence. But, when there is overwhelming evidence. Then so long. I have said it many times. i would donate a weeks vacation to dig the graves all day long with a backhoe (very experienced with a back hoe) to get rid of worthless people who kill for no good reason.

I have no sympathy so that is where I stand on the issue. Sarge

A young fella in my hometown was accused of molestation by ANGRY minor ex-stepdaughter. Up to 4 times a day! And his ex-wife. The jury had him guilty before going to court. Accused by a minor.
He did not stand a chance. Her word against his. She's a minor so she's protected. Can't be forced to take a lie-detector test. The court told him to take a plea bargain. He refused, because he was innocent. Nobody in town thought he was guilty.
He was not executed, however.

I think we should bring back public hangings.

Now i'm not heartless. I know people get accused and convicted of wrong doing. Heck, I get accused of things by people all the time. Is it frustrating. Heck yeah! It's human nature. But the person who was executed tonight didn't try to hide his involvement in the murders.

People who are later found not guilty should be compensated very well to live out their lives the best they can.

Take the Golden State killer, that old man should be executed tomorrow if i had my way.

Deterrent method i like is. Dig graves inside prison grounds and when newly convicted murderers arrive. They should be driven by the graves with a sign saying. We'll be waiting for you! I bet that would hit home in a hurry.

Also, executions should be done year long. Dig the hole now while the ground is still soft and not frozen. Store the dry dirt in a building and have at it. Sarge

That is my exact answer to the proper punishment... If you have ever seen anyone that has hung them self or been hung by someone else you would know what I mean.

Garry-

I fully agree with you

In Wisconsin we have a "habitual criminality" statute.

Have always believed in that concept! Had no idea it existed anywhere. Once an individual establishes themselves as an incorrigible career criminal they should have a reduced level of protection in terms of "rights".

Just for the sake of discussion: If the state, anywhere, has the ability to impose the death penalty, it is a given that at least one innocent person will be executed by that state (it has happened before). That's one too many, it might be me! On the other hand, execution for a capital crime at the scene of the crime, particularly by the victim of said crime is totally justified. Thoughts?

We spend far too much effort and money on criminals.

Absent extremely egregious circumstances they should be put to death immediately after the gavel drops.
In those extreme cases that seem to warrant a further look, they should get a max of six months for appeals, then immediate death.

There should be no long prison sentences.
Put them to death for any sentence over three years.

We're not here to babysit adults.
Fly right, flee the country, or be put to death.

So let me get this straight. You are against the death penalty when someone has been judged and found guilty by 12 of their peers through a lengthy trial where evidence for both sides is presented and their is not a reasonable doubt the person is guilty. However, you are all for rolling up to a crime scene and executing someone on the spot with no trial because you think they are guilty? Also, how would the victim of a capital crime (murder) be able to execute anyone? Ummmm.... They would be dead.

The kids on the street See no real punishment for the convicted crime. Just That they're doing time.
Hang them in the street and see what their career choices might bring.

Where is Harison Ford???

Reread my first sentence. Innocents have gone through the process and have been executed by the state. Google it. And execution at the scene and time of the crime by witnesses or victims can be carried out in any number of ways. It's called self defense or lethal force in defense of someone else. I'd rather be tried by twelve than carried by six.
Imagine sitting on death row, you will die tomorrow for the rape and murder of a child. But you didn't do it. Everyone KNOWS you did it, after all, you were tried and convicted. Maybe your partner was offered life instead of death and told the jury the story the prosecutor made up for him. Happens all the time. Prosecutors don't care about justice, they just want a warm body convicted.
Your wife thinks you did it, your kids think you did it, your mother thinks you did it, everybody knows you did it!. But you didn't, and tomorrow you die for it.
A life sentence, for example, can be set right if further evidence proves innocence; a death sentence, obviously cannot.
And "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not etched in stone; it means different things to different people. A jury of 12 is not infallible.
Please note, I didn't say I believed ANYTHING except that self defense or lethal force in defense of another is justified. Perhaps I didn't make that clear. I just offered up something that I think needs some thought.

Yes, I realize that innocent people have been put to death and have been on death row. In fact, I took that position in college on a debate team and won. I have no problem with putting more safeguards in place to try and make sure that doesn't happen. That would be a separate discussion. My point is that people are on death row way too long these days and I don't consider that an appropriate safeguard. In laymen's terms, the way the appeals process works these days is that every objection that is overruled by the judge against the defense during the trial is a point of appeal. A savvy lawyer will file those appeals one at a time (ish) delaying the completion of the sentence. Obviously, this takes years and/or decades. There is no reason other than a delaying tactic that these appeals cannot be all looked and decided upon by a different judge at the same time. If a reversible error is found, then a retrial should be granted post haste. Sitting on the taxpayers dime for 20 years is not justified.

That's a fact. Life in prison is easier for the thugs today than it is in the streets. Free room and board, dental, healthcare, and just lay around all day. What changes for the worse?
Solitary confinement has been done away with (in NE anyway) because it makes criminals lonely.

O.K. Now I'll tell you what I believe and am extremely unlikely to change my mind about. Innocents being executed by the state under any circumstances is unacceptable to me. In Vietnam we called the their killings "collateral damage". I am totally opposed to the death penalty because its elimination would produce zero collateral damage. I am unwilling to accept any collateral damage .from state executions. How much are you willing to accept in order to kill the bad guys? And, no doubt, they deserve killing, but I would rather see them locked away until they die. a real honest life sentence.
Thanks for your response. I hope we.ve made some mental wheels turn.

There is a fundamental flaw in the logic that says "We should imprison people instead of executing them because they might be innocent."
The flaw is, that if they're innocent they don't deserve to be imprisoned either! An innocent person doesn't deserve death OR imprisonment, so how can anyone in good conscience want to imprison someone who might be innocent?? Why is it OK in your mind to cage up someone who might innocent?

Our gradual-scale sentencing system has resulted in the mentality that its OK to punish someone for a crime they might not have committed, as long as you punish them LESS. It's like a jury saying "well the crime you're accused of was really horrific, but we're not sure you actually did it. So instead of killing you we're just going to lock you up for the rest of your life instead."
Where's the justice in that??

There's a phrase used in the early documents of our criminal code: "guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.'

In my opinion, if a person is not found guilty beyond a shadow of doubt, they should walk out the door free and clear. If they are found guilty, they should receive the full punishment. Punishing people a little bit for little crimes and maybe crimes is the reason we keep building more prisons.


I believe there should be only 2 criminal punishments: execution and restitution. That's what I posted about a few weeks ago here: https://trapperman.com/forum/ubbthr...ice-a-concept-for-discussion#Post6981883

Firing Squads need to make a comeback