BEST Argument for Death Penalty I've Seen!

[Tgace]

Given that the 6th amendment forbids cruel and unusual punishment, why euthenize him?

Execution doesn't violate the 8th amendment. (The 6th deals with the issue of a "speedy trial" and to be confronted by your accuser.)

As the supreme court has decided on a few occasions....

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/410/410lect16.htm

While the imposition of death is constitutional per se, the procedure by which sentence is passed must be so structured as to reduce arbitrariness and capriciousness as much as possible.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment08/06.html#1

Capital Punishment .--In Trop, the majority refused to consider ''the death penalty as an index of the constitutional limit on punishment. Whatever the arguments may be against capital punishment . . . the death penalty has been employed throughout our history, and, in a day when it is still widely accepted, it cannot be said to violate the constitutional concept of cruelty. 50 But a coalition of civil rights and civil liberties organizations mounted a campaign against the death penalty in the 1960s, and the Court eventually confronted the issues involved. The answers were not, it is fair to say, consistent one with another.

That being said, many of the "alternate" methods of punishment mentioned here probably would be considered "unusual".

 

[Ender]

Everything must be diverted towards the military/government dont you know?

I'm sure you recognize the politics of obfuscation....*G

 

[Tgace]

I'm sure you recognize the politics of obfuscation....*G

I thought it looked familiar...

 

[MA-Caver]

Hey MACaver someone down in your state knows how to deal with this, see story here

It sounds like a CSI story.

Lamont

Dang, I was hoping they wouldn't find that bastard too soon... should've dumped the pieces down a mine shaft. Oh well... (wishful thinking of course )

As for the rest of the replies. A lot of them were along the lines of my own intial post, very emotional, full of hate/anger/disgust and desire for justice.
I am guessing that the emotional outpouring shown here is indicative of the awareness that this guy will probably languish in prison for the remainder of his days instead of getting what most of us feel he deserves.
Brandi Jo I understand and respect that you don't support the death penalty, yet I wonder if you cannot see that there is no better means of punishing him? For a lot of (habitual criminals) prison isn't a bad deal. Three squares a day, free laundry, secure protected environment (if in solitary) and all the time to gloat, and relish in the crimes that he's committed.
If he had done this to two adult females I could probably be pursuaded to not think he should have the death penalty but these are two young innocent little girls. Lured to someplace by someone they trust. That one of them had to experience the extreme terror of watching their friend get brutalized first... if he didn't knock them both out first.
Still we all hope that justice will be met out to this beast who no longer is a part of human society by committing to these acts of violence against those who were powerless to prevent him.
May God have NO mercy on his soul!

 

[Gin-Gin]

Brandi Jo I understand and respect that you don't support the death penalty, yet I wonder if you cannot see that there is no better means of punishing him? For a lot of (habitual criminals) prison isn't a bad deal. Three squares a day, free laundry, secure protected environment (if in solitary) and all the time to gloat, and relish in the crimes that he's committed. If he had done this to two adult females I could probably be pursuaded to not think he should have the death penalty but these are two young innocent little girls. Lured to someplace by someone they trust. That one of them had to experience the extreme terror of watching their friend get brutalized first... if he didn't knock them both out first. Still we all hope that justice will be met out to this beast who no longer is a part of human society by committing to these acts of violence against those who were powerless to prevent him. May God have NO mercy on his soul!

This is one of the worst crimes I've ever heard of [and being from Texas where murderers like Kenneth McDuff & Henry Lee Lucas are from, that's saying something]--those poor little girls!!! :rpo: The article made no mention of him (Hobbs) ever being in a psychiatric hospital, so I'm guessing he was never found "incompetent to stand trial" or mentally ill. Although I'm not an expert on the Criminal Justice system, the fact that he served a prison sentence for assault & still did not "learn his lesson" indicates two things to me: 1) that he is a repeat offender & obviously prison did not rehabilitate him, & 2) because the level of violence seems to have escalated since his last crime (the article didn't go into the details of the 2001 crime but I'm assuming since he didn't serve a very long sentence that it was not as heinous as this one), that he should not be around anyone ever again. If it turns out that he was diagnosed as mentally ill & should have been institutionalized & wasn't--then the system failed him & those two little girls miserably.

Yes I'm biased, but with reason: a dear friend of mine was killed in 1996, also a victim of violent crime (his ex stalked him for days & then shot him 3 times while he was in his car at a stoplight) but someone who goes to this level of violence--I just can't think of anything more suitable than the death penalty for them (or that Louisiana swamp idea someone proposed earlier sounds good too). If this guy didn't value his own child's life, he obviously doesn't value anyone else's, so I really don't want my tax dollars spent supporting him with "3 hots & a cot" for the rest of his life. This is just my opinion, but the system doesn't work for everyone. I agree with MACaver, this is best argument for the death penalty I've heard in recent years.

Think of me what you will, but I just can't feel sorry for murderers (or child molesters or rapists). :disgust:

 

[Bammx2]

Personally...and I truely don't care if "sensitive" people disagree,


That man has no right to a "fair and just trial"!
He has about as much right as those girls had the right to die like that!
Forensics is all the "trial" he desrves!
If they PROVE he did it....right to the front of the line he goes!
Better yet....screw lethal injection...the crime should fit the punishment!
I may live in the UK,for now,I STILL have friends back in the US and I will be returning.
We have the same arguement here as well......My tax dollars ain't there to support some scumbag like that!
I have never seen on my pay stubs...."Scumbag Living expenses"(politicians not includued).
If they could find a way to feed and house them without using hard earned tax dollars....SO?! Smoke the sick a-holes anyway!
When you take someones right to live like that,especially kids,you should forfit your right to a "fair and speedy trial"!
A jury of his peers?! ffftt! I don't know any peers that screwed up!
What good is it to these morons sit in prison anyway?
Some of them ACTUALLY like it! Thats why they commit the crime they do!
C'mon....3 hots and a cot for life?! No work,no taxes?! Free cable and AC?!
In some states...free college!
For those who think life in prison is all they should get....let'em live at your house then!
Bet you'll be reachin for that syringe before too long....or a pick-axe
Some say "God forgives" I say "Not my job....maybe to arrange the meeting".
(go norman)
Some would say "Vigilanteism"...
in this particular case,I say:

"DARN TOOTIN"!

 

[arnisador]

Did all of you who favor the torture of this guy also favor the torture of prisoners in Iraq?

I leave aside the issue of waiving the trial and going straight for the old-fashioned lynching.

 

[heretic888]

Lesson Number One, class: society shows us its wrong to kill people by, well, killing people. Please turn to page 132 of your The Complete Hypocrite's Guide to Justice and Compassion for research and references.

:ultracool

Maybe its just me, but I just don't see how imitating the behavior of torturers, rapists, murderers, and other assorted "baddies" passes off as morally justified. It has nothing to do with "sensitivity", as much as it does with moral integrity. "Eye for an eye" is, like, so Iranian, dude.

Not to mention, the comments thus far on the thread lead to some pretty good examples of demonizing and de-humanizing the Other to justify pretty much anything we damn well please against him/her/it. A pretty typical trend in history.

Of course, maybe its just because I know that socially-sanctioned violence actually encourages and creates more violence. Ergo, if your stated goal is to "stop the killin", this isn't the best way to go about it.

Vengeance is as vengeance does, Forrest.

 

[arnisador]

Let alone the slippery slope argument. We're 100% sure he's guilty; next time, will 99% sure suffice?

As an aside, wasn't "eye for an eye" a call for mercy--no more than an eye for an eye, no more than a tooth for a tooth?

 

[Tgace]

Most states responded to the requirement that the sentencing authority be given standards narrowing discretion to impose the death penalty by enacting statutes spelling out ''aggravating'' circumstances at least one of which must be found to be present before the death penalty may be imposed. The standards must be rel atively precise and instructive in providing guidance that minimizes the risk of arbitrary and capricious action by the sentencer, the desired result being a principled way to distinguish cases in which the death penalty is imposed from other cases in which it is not. Thus, the Court invalidated a capital sentence based upon a jury finding that the murder was ''outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible, and inhuman,'' reasoning that ''a person of ordinary sensibility could fairly [so] characterize almost every murder.'' 75 Similarly, an ''especially heinous, atrocious or cruel'' aggravating circumstance was held to be unconstitutionally vague. 76 The ''especially heinous, cruel or depraved'' standard is cured, however, by a narrowing interpretation requiring a finding of infliction of mental anguish or physical abuse before the victim's death. 77

.

 

[Tgace]

Of course a legally justified execution and the process to get there is miles from some things mentioned here.

 

[MA-Caver]

Did all of you who favor the torture of this guy also favor the torture of prisoners in Iraq?

I leave aside the issue of waiving the trial and going straight for the old-fashioned lynching.

The Iraqi scandal was just that ... scandalous and wrong. That they (the prisoners) had probably had crimes on their heads as part of Saddam's military/police force against their own people and ended up as POW's and were detained is right. Torture and abuse of said POW's is wrong.
This guy is probably no better than those Iraqi's who murdered tortured innocent men, women and children and thus is on the same level of inhuman-ness.
However; justice (for them) should be met out by the Iraqi people now in power. However may they decide to deal with them and punishment by their laws. Our soldiers were wrong in taking Iraqi justice into their American hands.

This guy (I'm ashamed to say) is an American and should be punished how our own people see fit. The death penalty is (IMO) the only just punishment that he deserves and that right soon, not languishing 14-18 years on death row like Ted Bundy. Our emotions are saying let the punishment fit the crime, let him suffer as those girls suffered. Our outrage is just and our feelings are just.
Rationally he should die as dictated by our laws if the system determines that.
As Gin Gin said the system failed him (and the girls) the first time around. Let us pray that it not fail him or US again.

 

[Flatlander]

I agree that this is most certainly a good argument for the death penalty. I also firmly believe that due process is the one and only layer of protection that lies between the citizenry of a society, and the justice system which defines and enforces the laws of that society.

As expensive, rigorous, and time consuming as due process tends to be, it is the one thing that keeps us safe from the whims of those who would use the law to serve themselves at the expense of our freedoms and liberties.

 

[Ender]

Let alone the slippery slope argument. We're 100% sure he's guilty; next time, will 99% sure suffice?

As an aside, wasn't "eye for an eye" a call for mercy--no more than an eye for an eye, no more than a tooth for a tooth?

Sure, 99% will suffice, as will as 98%, 97%, etc...As long as it's beyond reasonable doubt, in which our court system is built upon. Percentage is irrelevant.

 

[PeachMonkey]

As Mohandas Gandhi said so eloquently, an eye for an eye ends up making the whole world blind.

 

[arnisador]

Sure, 99% will suffice, as will as 98%, 97%, etc...As long as it's beyond reasonable doubt, in which our court system is built upon. Percentage is irrelevant.

I think the classic French standard of "reasonable doubt" was 1 in 10,000, if memory serves. Beyond reasonable doubt does not mean beyond all doubt.

In any event, we have a jury system in part because reasonable doubt is defined differently by different people; having 12 people on the jury tends to "average out" those differences (or, sometimes, I suppose, the most stringent standard wins out, if a unanimous decision is needed). I don't agree that percentage is irrelevant, but in one sense it doesn't matter--reasonable doubt means different things to different people in different circumstances.

Advice to juries on this matter is usually not quantitative, I believe.

 

[Athena]

Does this sicko deserve to die? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean that the death penalty is right in this country. I think it's better to keep a guilty man alive in prison than to kill an innocent one. Until you have a system that is fool-proof, you just should not be killing people with my tax money. It costs more to go through all of the appeals processes than to keep someone in prison for life. Until you have a judicial system that is not clouded by racial and economic factors- not to mention contains blatant errors- nobody should be put to death. Even if I really really really want them to die...

 

[Corporal Hicks]

This man deserves a trial sure! If he didnt have a trial it would be shown that people seem to make up their minds before taking into account the entire evidence. I dont mean to say that I dont think he did not do it, I'm just saying the legal system main aim is to focus on everybody having a fair trial.
Cant sometimes take what the media say, because what if it wasnt him? What if it was some other guy? Have the trial and prove the point! Then do all that other stuff.

What would annoy me however is if you get the "sensitve" people on the jury who eventually agree that this man could "change" and that he didnt believe what he did, and he wasnt in his right mind and therefore he should be given another chance.... er NO!
I think with jury's like this (which is what you get alot of over here) you should throw some reality straight into their faces. The public dont even have a clue of what goes on in this country because its hidden from them. Most people on the jury have never felt the intimidation or terrorising nature that one person in a town is cable of, and they believe that person when that person states that if they go to a "rehab" centre they can "change". I would say send them to "rebah" after they have served a full sentence of what they deserve not halve the sentence and then send them to rehab.

The justice system is messed up over here, people are getting sick of it, personally, I dont blame them. For assaulting a police officier and seriously enjurying them the most stupid setence I have heard is 18 months?????????? What the hell? If they are well behaved that shortens to 16 months? Justify that, they assault a police officier and hardly get a sentence. What does that make them think? Ah, doesnt matter I'll do it again if need be, since I'd hardly get a worse sentence! The best my TKD instructor told me was that some guy assaulted one of your American Police Officer's and got a sentence of 18 years, 18 years!!!!!!!!! now that is a sentence.
Of course it depends on the circumstances I appreciate that!

In terms of this guy! If they prove him guilty as hell! I'd go for what I said earlier. This guy has no morals, so lets show him the lack of ours!

Regards

 

[Corporal Hicks]

This man deserves a trial sure! If he didnt have a trial it would be shown that people seem to make up their minds before taking into account the entire evidence. I dont mean to say that I dont think he did not do it, I'm just saying the legal system main aim is to focus on everybody having a fair trial.
Cant sometimes take what the media say, because what if it wasnt him? What if it was some other guy? Have the trial and prove the point! Then do all that other stuff.

What would annoy me however is if you get the "sensitve" people on the jury who eventually agree that this man could "change" and that he didnt believe what he did, and he wasnt in his right mind and therefore he should be given another chance.... er NO!
I think with jury's like this (which is what you get alot of over here) you should throw some reality straight into their faces. The public dont even have a clue of what goes on in this country because its hidden from them. Most people on the jury have never felt the intimidation or terrorising nature that one person in a town is cable of, and they believe that person when that person states that if they go to a "rehab" centre they can "change". I would say send them to "rebah" after they have served a full sentence of what they deserve not halve the sentence and then send them to rehab.

The justice system is messed up over here, people are getting sick of it, personally, I dont blame them. For assaulting a police officier and seriously enjurying them the most stupid setence I have heard is 18 months?????????? What the hell? If they are well behaved that shortens to 16 months? Justify that, they assault a police officier and hardly get a sentence. What does that make them think? Ah, doesnt matter I'll do it again if need be, since I'd hardly get a worse sentence! The best my TKD instructor told me was that some guy assaulted one of your American Police Officer's and got a sentence of 18 years, 18 years!!!!!!!!! now that is a sentence.
Of course it depends on the circumstances I appreciate that!

In terms of this guy! If they prove him guilty as hell! I'd go for what I said earlier. This guy has no morals, so lets show him the lack of ours!

Regards

I mean how we CAN lack morals, if we choose to do so lol!

 

[MisterMike]

As Mohandas Gandhi said so eloquently, an eye for an eye ends up making the whole world blind.

Well, the suspect kinda took out 2 "eyes", and most people are talking about just taking him out now (1) to prevent any further blindness.