Lisa Montgomery's execution now set for Jan. 12, giving time for clemency application

You completely avoided responding to my message. Executing a murderer means there is one less murderer. What would you do with murderers? A lifelong of solitary confinement torture until the day the person dies? You prefer decades of torture over execution? Or what is your alternative?

 

Sigh. Buh bye now.

 

It's not meant to stop crime but to say it has no effect on murder rates is folly. We put people in jail for robbery and rape yet robbery and rape still occur should we not not put robbers and rapist in jail? Same principle. It's capital PUNISHMENT meant to punish the person who took another person's life and it works quite well.

 

In at least one well-known case it is a provable fact that the Death Penalty itself actually caused two murders. This was the case of John Thanos, and you can look it up. Thanos said he wanted to die but was too cowardly to commit suicide, so he killed two adolescents who were working a convenience store. When it came time for the sentencing, and it looked like he might get life, he turned to the parents, saying how much he had enjoyed killing their offspring. He got his wish as to death.

The DP was certainly not a deterrent in this case, far from it. One has to wonder how many cases are similar since people who become crazed murderers are not really known for self-knowledge

 

"The screen door shuts, so the screen door must keep the heat in. Therefore we must all have screen doors in the middle of winter". Or did I misrepresent your strawman?

 

I understand the arguments. I debated this topic in HS, and I researched well. I've gone back and forth on it my whole life.

At the time I was researching it, we were, in Illinois, letting people on death row out of prison, due to newly discovered DNA evidence, proving their innocence. (Back when DNA was brand new.) My opinion swung wildly at that time. We were killing innocent people.

Now that we have DNA, it makes it much easier to be okay with the decision.

I loathe the idea of gas chambers and firing squads, though.

 

If shes that friggin sick, there is no cure or redemption in this life

Put her out of her misery and give her victims some measure of justice, however small.

 

This woman is guilty by her own admittance, she committed one of the worst crimes the investigators had ever seen. Why should she get clemency or commutation by a President Biden? It has nothing to do with she might be innocent she's not.

And we can seek the perfect as Scalia once said concerning the death penalty and no one has presented a clear confirmed case of an innocent execution.


"When death penalty opponents point to the people exonerated from death row, death penalty proponents respond that none of the exonerated were actually executed.[13] For example, Justice Scalia recently wrote, "those ideologically driven to ferret out and proclaim a mistaken modem execution have not a single verifiable case to point to.,[14] Thus, death penalty opponents hope that with the proof that an innocent person was executed, an overwhelming majority of Americans will oppose the death penalty. [15]"

13. Marsh, 126 S. Ct. at 2533 (Scalia, J., concurring) (stating that "the dissent does not discuss a single case-not one-in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit").
14. Id. at 2539.
15. Justice Scalia noted that if the innocence of a recently executed inmate were discovered, "we would not have to hunt for it; the innocent's name would be shouted from the roof tops by the abolition lobby." Id. at 2533

So we do get better, forensics get better.

In the mean time, we should get on with this one.

 

You dodge my post and posted your strawman......if you want to discuss the issue then do so else don't waste my time.

 

You ask me the bolded, when I've already said, in post 11:

Let me say that your opinion of my opinions is way off base.

 

Here's my question: Why should this be a matter of federal jurisdiction?

Shouldn't the state where the crime occurred have jurisdiction?

 

it is not a deterrent. it is not punishment. it is not revenge. it is simply refuse disposal. there are people out there who just aren't fit to live in society and some of them are going to do something so horrific that their total uselessness and the danger they pose to everyone is all too evident. these are the ones we execute, but there are many more we simply warehouse until their end eventually comes. the question is not whether we should dispose of such creatures in a humane manner, but whether we shouldn't be disposing of more of them.

 

I've believed all my life that the only thing 'wrong' with capital punishment is that, thanks to sob-sister, bleeding-heart Democrats it almost always takes twenty fugging YEARS, or more, for a sentence to be carried out!

There should be a thoroughly fair trial, a complete review of everything afterwards, from top-to-bottom, if a capital sentence is pronounced, and, if after all that there is no reason to halt or postpone carrying out the sentence, it should go forward within another few days.

Hint to all murderers: if you don't like the punishment, don't commit the crime in the first damned place!

 

Yeah morality doesn't actually exist except when a society says it does.

There is nothing moral or immoral without a human deciding it.

And it was posted earlier that capital punishment is not actually a punishment, it is revenge for the victim and the society in which it happened.

 

I have two alternatives, both based on balancing the scales. The first is exact on the convicted criminal the same fate applied of the victim or, a price based on either the replacement value of the victim, with a minimum value decided by the state. If a victim has family survivors, there is a potential to calculate the value to each, across subsequent generations for the loss of the victim, then the convicted criminal would essentially be required to replace that value by working for the survivors, basically working in slavery to the survivors or in the case of no survivors, work at state assigned jobs until the scales are balanced.... that is my interpretation of eye for an eye. If a criminal fails to work or injures another, I say bring back the old medieval methods of torture and/or execution.
Simply execute a first offense murderer and everybody pays for that execution, it is a backwards model. On lessor violent crimes, bran the offender with a V on the forehead, in addition to forced restitution.

 

there is no way to balance the offenses of those who refuse to abide by the rules of common decency. make them "work it off"? why take a job from someone deserving of employment? as for your torture fantasies, that is merely vengeance. occasional acts of revenge may be forgiven civilized individuals, but not a civilized society. the society should represent the best of its people's ideals. refuse disposal is a nasty but necessary part of everyday life, taking gruesome revenge on those who wrong you is not.

 

I guess Pro-life only applies to foetuses.

 

Yes, the execution should go forward. And no, the fact that she's a woman shouldn't matter.

 

I can understand your opinion. But, it would appear to me we have yet come to grips with the purpose of the penalties prescribed to convicted of crimes. Is it rehabilitation, deterrence, revenge, or stopping a repeat of the offense? It’s been a long running debate, centuries that depending on the prevailing attitudes of the time shifts between those goals.
Were I to encounter certain offenses in progress, such as violence against women, children, or the defenseless, there is a high chance I will end up in front of a judge. I have. Was what I did, morally right in my situations... probably depends on the opinion of the observer.
My ex wife, a Quaker, knew I carried the means the the training for self defense and my proclivity to intervene when someone was being victimized. She claimed to believe all killing, including executions wrong and even expressed worries what I would do in a situation like an armed robbery or something similar. She said she’d prefer dying than taking a life in self defense. Then, I once asked her if someone broke into the house and was intent on rapping or hurting her daughter what would she do? Kill them she said. So, where’s the line?
When someone crosses the line to unprovoked violence or murder, demonstrating that they are a danger to society, what’s the solution? I have my opinion. I also reserve the right to change it should there be a good reason, like it’s Tuesday.

 

Comparing an innocent baby to a vile murderer the best you got? I guess since you would have no problem killing the former just to get rid of it you have no problem executing the latter then?

 

The purpose is to punish and it is not a "revenge". And in a capital case to eliminate the person from our society as the ultimate penalty for their doing so to someone else. If other criminals can be rehabilitated while they are serving their punish good. And if there is a deterrent effect even better. One reason we do have a civil society, how civil these days a debatable subject, is because we as a society establish laws against uncivil acts and enforce them through the law enforcement we hire and the courts to adjudicate the matter when someone violates one of those laws.

In the case of this person, the sooner she is disposed with the better she has no place in our society.

 

We can observe that, at least, "foetuses" have not MURDERED other people....

 

Even the worst offenders have Fundamental Human Rights.

I oppose Death Penalty and inhumane prison conditions.

In Norway, even Bravik has a right to humane conditions in prison.

 

I believe that Ethics and Morality are formulated in the Old Testament.

 

Some #notall feminists defend women who kill men -- Betty Broderick, Clara Harris, Jodi Arias, etc.

In current case, both the offender and her victim are women. In Jeffery Dahmer case, both he and his victims are men. Thus, gender is irrelevant in these cases.