Cherrypicker wrote:

I know! Kids these days have no respect for their elders! I may just go back into hiding!

Well you did get that right... you are my ELDER

TeamRoper wrote:

But to turn the table, if your daughter was raped and killed by someone that was caught on tape at the mall taking her away, and confessed to the rape and killing of her, told where the remains are at do you think you would be ok with life in prison or would you want him to get the DP?

Roper, this right here..... This is why I'm in favor of it. I couldn't handle it if my girlfriend or cousin or any friend was raped and murdered. They had BETTER get the DP. Even that wouldn't make it better for me, there is nothing that would... BUT knowing that that person is not still alive and I don't have to think about what they are doing or anything like that... I don't know, I just think that it has to be available for something that heinous.

I am absolutely all in favor of locking these people away until they die in prison. Put them in an 8x8 cell with a copy of Alcatraz Daily News and let them out one hour a day to clean the prison. They can talk to their lawyer and that's it.

I am just as against giving these people the 15-20 years and letting them walk the street again as I am the death penalty. I would just prefer we have the ability to correct a wrongful conviction by unlocking a jail cell rather than trying CPR on a guy that was killed 3 years earlier.

I do not believe there is any reason states could not pass laws that say you will serve 120 years in prison for your crime and you have absolutely no possibility of parole or early release. I think you would accomplish the same amount of deterrence with that type of punishment as you do with the death penalty - while maintaing the ability to correct the mistakes that, unfortunately, will always continue to happen, even if only in a small number of cases.

Boog, I don't practice criminal law (although I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express a couple months ago), and if I did it would probably be as a prosecutor rather than a defense attorney. I am all in favor of being harder on criminals than we often are. I just think that life without any possibility of parole is a better system than the death penalty.

Quote:

I am all in favor of being harder on criminals than we often are. I just think that life without any possibility of parole is a better system than the death penalty.

I do agree, the scum bag that killed my friend got 25 yrs before possible parole, so if he is a good bitch in prison maybe he gets out in 25 yrs when he is 54 and the guy he killed would have been 50. Doesn't really seems like it add up correctly.


Now if you kill somebody that is 90 yrs. old I think you should get 10 yrs max, shit they wouldn't have lived much more anyways. (just a joke)

[quote="kevgraub"]I am absolutely all in favor of locking these people away until they die in prison. quote]

I'd be satisfied with that.

that's all fine and dandy but while they are setting in that airconditioned cell, watching their cable color tv, getting three square meals a day, we all are not only paying for that but for any and all medical expenses this individual might have.

I would rather pay one time one monthly addition on my electric bill to help pay for the juice. Just how I feel. Maybe not right but damn straight by me.

So maybe 1 in 100 gets executed who was completely innocent. Chalk it up to trial and error. Heck how many die from second hand smoke everyday? Just add them in the list of played with matches and GOT BURNED!

I GOT THE UPMOST RESPECT FOR KEV AND MC!! Both great guys and good friends but even the best of friends don't always agree and this is one thing I stand strong on.

here's a solution----put them all over in IRAQ even the ones without the DS. and bring our men and women home to their families!! if they make it out alive or back without killing each other then shoot them has they try to enter across the border, or torpedoe their ship off the coast, or blow their plane out of the sky!!

( you get the idea?)

My turn--

1) I am pro death penalty

2) I am also in favor of a life w/o parole option

A point that have not yet been touched upon-- The APPLICATION of the death penalty is inherently unfair. Case in point- have you ever heard of a rich bastard on death row? No. Nobody will ever convince me that a wealthy fucker who murders doesn't deserve to die just as much as some poor SOB who kills. The only difference is the lawyers.

OJ is living proof of that.

Old Hippy wrote:

The only difference is the lawyers.

or could part of it be the APPEARANCE of more mitigating factors?


I incedently agree with you on most of your point.. But this thought crossed my mind after reading your post.

OK I have changed my mind on that death penalty thing.
After reading several posts by both barryvonpuck and jc, they both need to die, and there are others getting close.

mctopeka wrote:

OK I have changed my mind on that death penalty thing. After reading several posts by both barryvonpuck and jc, they both need to die, and there are others getting close.

motion seconded

get a rope!

mctopeka wrote:

OK I have changed my mind on that death penalty thing. After reading several posts by both barryvonpuck and jc, they both need to die, and there are others getting close.

didn't take you long to do that.....amazing what happens when you rub elbows with them.

Thunderfan101 wrote:

Old Hippy wrote: The only difference is the lawyers. or could part of it be the APPEARANCE of more mitigating factors? I incedently agree with you on most of your point.. But this thought crossed my mind after reading your post.

The appearance of more mitigating factors brought to light by attorneys who are getting paid big bucks to look for them. Not to dis anyone in the public defender's offices, but most public defenders are massively overworked and quite simply do not have the time or, more important , the RESOURCES to match up with the high dollar defense teams bought and paid for by the wealthy.

Old Hippy wrote:

Thunderfan101 wrote: Old Hippy wrote: The only difference is the lawyers. or could part of it be the APPEARANCE of more mitigating factors? I incedently agree with you on most of your point.. But this thought crossed my mind after reading your post. The appearance of more mitigating factors brought to light by attorneys who are getting paid big bucks to look for them. Not to dis anyone in the public defender's offices, but most public defenders are massively overworked and quite simply do not have the time or, more important , the RESOURCES to match up with the high dollar defense teams bought and paid for by the wealthy.

exactly, that is why I said the appearance. I agree totally.

Old Hippy wrote:

A point that have not yet been touched upon-- The APPLICATION of the death penalty is inherently unfair. Case in point- have you ever heard of a rich bastard on death row? No. Nobody will ever convince me that a wealthy fucker who murders doesn't deserve to die just as much as some poor SOB who kills. The only difference is the lawyers.

Umm, how about Scott Peterson? He may not have been a multi-millionaire, but he did own his own business, and wasn't really bad off. Just a self centered prick.

Thing about the disparity of rich murderers and poor murderers is, the rich fuckers usually hire some poor fucker to do his dirty work. The rich fucker can still get the chair for his part in said murder, but it's ALOT harder to prove. It's one of those things where you have to believe what a poor scumbag says, to what a rich scumbag says. Not to mention the multitude of reasons why a poor person murders someone, compared to a rich person. It's just usually the reasons a rich person murders someone is more meaningless, immoral, and unnecesary (not that any murder is "necesary", but there are degrees of understanding why).

I'm Pro-death penalty, and I'm also for getting rid of the Insanity plea. You have to insane to some extent to kill someone, in the first place. Get rid of that bullshit loophole, and get rid of all these psychos. Like they're necesary to society in the first place.

well said BT!!

that's definately a loophole and a scapegoat.

an eye for an eye a life for a life

I think the insanity defense is something that many people really don't understand.

You do not get off just by proving you were crazy at the time you committed the murder. You have to meet a very tough burden of showing that you were completely unable to that what you were doing was wrong at the time you committed the crime. Very, very few people are insane to this degree. I think a person could argue that Rader was probably somewhat insane, but he also knew what he was doing was wrong - thus the insanity defense would have been of no use to him.

If a person is unable to tell what they were doing was wrong - what purpose does sending them to prison rather than a mental institute serve? It is like punishing your four year old for saying "Shit" for the very first time. If he has no idea it is bad for him to say "Shit," would you immediately send him to his room without supper, or would you work to explain to him not that it is wrong and he should not say it again?

Now, I think there are certainly cases where insanity is pled (usually unsuccessfully) that are total BS. However, the same can be said for self-defense (which I don't think anyone wants to do away with).

By the way, Kansas is one of four states that has abolished the insanity defense, so none of you have to worry about it too much.

Shit, after reading through this whole thread, I'm starting to worry that I am becoming a liberal. WTF is up with that?!?!

You are beginning to scare me Kev...............

kevgraub wrote:

I think the insanity defense is something that many people really don't understand. You do not get off just by proving you were crazy at the time you committed the murder. You have to meet a very tough burden of showing that you were completely unable to that what you were doing was wrong at the time you committed the crime. Very, very few people are insane to this degree. I think a person could argue that Rader was probably somewhat insane, but he also knew what he was doing was wrong - thus the insanity defense would have been of no use to him. If a person is unable to tell what they were doing was wrong - what purpose does sending them to prison rather than a mental institute serve? It is like punishing your four year old for saying "Shit" for the very first time. If he has no idea it is bad for him to say "Shit," would you immediately send him to his room without supper, or would you work to explain to him not that it is wrong and he should not say it again? Now, I think there are certainly cases where insanity is pled (usually unsuccessfully) that are total BS. However, the same can be said for self-defense (which I don't think anyone wants to do away with). By the way, Kansas is one of four states that has abolished the insanity defense, so none of you have to worry about it too much. Shit, after reading through this whole thread, I'm starting to worry that I am becoming a liberal. WTF is up with that?!?!

The real question is do you pack viagra with you everwhere?

Or does mc take care of that "end" for you?