Utah executes condemned killer by firing squad

People who have lived in Utah and are not part of the entrenched Mormon culture there often refer to the state as a place "Behind the Zion Curtain." Which so often correctly describes the repressive, religiously zealous and backwards old west mentality that defines that state.

Capital punishment is an attrocity against civilized communities. Revenge by the state is no better than individual murder, just as barbaric and perhaps more so because it is done with community consent.

We know from the statistics that the death penalty is not a deterrent. We also know it costs more thanks to the appeals process that often accompanies these decisions. But the real cost to society is the perpetuation of violence as a means of addressing problems. A message humanity can no longer afford to send.

I feel shame for my birthplace today and for her citizens for accepting this action. I thank whatever powers there are every day that I was lucky to escape from behind the Zion curtain to live in the real world most of my life. Even now I can barely stand to visit Utah as the ever present contradition of a "godly socieity" and the reality of exclusion, racism and gun culture is too sickening to endure.

I'm for capital punishment, but firing squad? That's a first. Do they really need to put a target on him? Who's shooting? The blind?

Gurukun. Good for you. Must be nice to rationalize the death of another person. I mean, clearly this guy has done something terrible to you right? And you can dismiss his humanity, the impact of his death on his family and the message of violence that capital punishment encourages. Right?

Killing is ok right? So long as the state says it is ok. Right again? And if we kill someone who actually didn't commit the crime, well that is just too bad for that guy right again? After all the legal system is 100% perfect and never makes a mistake. All those death row people released or cleared after they were executed were rare exceptions right? Jurors never make the wrong call since they have all the absolute truths and facts for every case. Right again?

So long as there is the chance that we kill the innocent, the death penalty is morally unthinkable. So long as it perpetuates state sanctioned violence it should be morally unthinkable. When will human beings as a society work harder to give up violence as an answer to problems? The time is now for us to evolve beyond the club weilding mentality and start showing far greater capacity for mercy and a better judgement to take the moral high ground.

I'm for capital punishment, and for firing squads. So long, fella. You other guys are too soft.

I'd rather risk being called "soft" than ever supporting the sanctioned murder of another human, especially when we know that the legal system is not infallible and mistakes can be made.

Meanwhile back at the ranch the population continues to twiddle their thumbs and do nothing to change their ridiculous society.

tkoind-What's wrong with wasting somebody. Obviously he/she did something to get the death penalty, right? Maybe he didn't do anything to me...but maybe he could have. right? Solves the problem of prison over crowding. Solves the problem of world over crowding. Saves the problem of wasting my tax dollars to have the worst of the worst being given room and a hot meal three times a day. If you support the scum, thats your perogative. But I want my tax dollars to go to other things more important than trash that should have thought about the consequences before doing thier atrocities.

I'd rather risk being called "soft" than ever supporting the sanctioned murder of another human

The people who get death sentences are not humans, they're animals. You can't just 'counsel' them and hope they will be rehabilitated.

Are you deliberately side-stepping the people who have mistakenly been found guilty and are on death row, or is the legal system that perfect in your eyes that anyone found guilty must be an animal by definition? I agree that some people have no hope of being rehabilitated, but life imprisonment both keeps menaces out of society, while it allows for the innocent few to be spared killing at the hands of the state.

Gurukun. From your reasoning we can round up all those unemployed people and take them to a field and shoot them. Afterall we can rationalize it as good for society, for the environment, for the planet. So later, we can also get rid of people who we don't like. Maybe this or that race. Maybe intellectuals or artists. Maybe kill off the Gay people. Or all those foreigners.

Your rationalizing murder by the state is a lesser degree of the same kind of rationalizaton that allowed Germany to exterminate a race that didn't fit into their social model. Or for other nations to exterminate their neighbors who are the wrong racial or religous presuasion.

Murder is murder Gufukun. And you are as much a murderer for calling for state sanctioned killing as the guy who independently kills someone. The same blood lust. The same evil.

Your primative thinking is exactly what is wrong with humanity. The capacity to ignore the moral high ground in favor of some kind of expedient solution to a problem or for sheer revenge.

How can you ignore the risk of injustice and the murder of innocents in your rationale for state murder? Rationalized murder is primative, wrong and backwards!

From your reasoning we can round up all those unemployed people and take them to a field and shoot them.

I don't know....did these people you are talking about commit some kind of crime? Or are you saying that all unemployed people are scum, animals, or trash because they are unemployed?

Let's look at the other side of your statement. If I was tired of starving, sleeping out in the rain, is it okay for me to slaughter somebody so I can get 3 hot free meals a day and a bed, with recreation too, that was all being paid by you?

Gurukun. Your reasoning makes no sense. We are talking about state sanctioned murder. The state must not have the right to take your life. If you empower the state to do so, you risk having the state expand that rationale to eliminate people for other reaons. We have seen this again and again. It can quickly be applied to "undesirable" people that a given state defines as such.

I was positing an example, not making a statement about the poor. I am against treating anyone with violence, criminals included. Society has other solutions to this problem that are as, if not more cost effective. State murder is neither necessary or justifiable.

Do you get the argument now?

tkoind2;"Society has other solutions to this problem that are as, if not more cost effective."

I agree with you on capital punishment issue not necessarily for the same reasons but your statement I quoted has some problems as Gorukun pointed out under so many of the international agreements and other so called "human rights" issues these criminals cannot be forced to work for there keep and must be given comforts that they do not deserve.

If the bleeding heart club would just accept forced labor for these animals and a work for compensation to the victims families then maybe those so bent or blood for blood would agree to drop the death penalty.

limboinjapan. We only have to go back to the 1930's to see what forced labor generated in the American penal system. We saw considerable abuses along side many empoverished individuals essentially becoming slave labor. This is why the conventions against forced labor make sense.

Now, on the other hand, in our current age, why not create work programs that teach real world skills and enable prisoners to learn while servicing society? I am dead against corporate prisons running labor camps to produce products. But why not have prisons doing work that serves society and community in a not for profit manner. If the labor came with practical training, then we have a chance to see something positive while avoiding the pitfals of past generations.

But if you really want to make change and save the burden on society for crime and prisons, you must first address the primary root cause of crime. And that is economic poverty and the embalances that perpetuate communities on the path of crime and violence.

Utah to execute condemned killer by firing squad

Which century is this country living in?

but life imprisonment both keeps menaces out of society, while it allows for the innocent few to be spared killing at the hands of the state.

Where are all these falsely accused people on death row? I would say the number of them would be very small. And you think it's still ok for the falsely imprisoned to serve a life sentence? Not much of a life is it?

BBC World just reported he has been executed.

Guilty or non-guilty are all irrelevant now.

How many of you bleeding hearts will be thinking about this guy next week?

Gurukun, But I want my tax dollars to go to other things more important than trash that should have thought about the consequences before doing thier atrocities.

Good point, However, your tax dollars aren`t going to those things whether you are supporting prisoners via taxes or not. If they were there would be no poverty, great healthcare for everyone, fantastic infrastructure, good paying jobs for all, and finally wonderful education. Where the heck are your tax dollars going? certainly not all of it to support prisoners is it? Wait! military?

I aleady forgot who he was.

pointofview-BUT! somebody is paying for room and board. It might be .0001% of my tax dollars, but it's .0001% of my tax dollars that I dont want going to house these losers. Hell, give my tax dollars to those people of the Gulf, or something. .. Not Death Row.

Thepro. Why is it that when someone takes a more humane position we are "bleeding hearts"? Why is empathy a bad thing? Why is mercy a bad thing? Why is taking the moral high ground considered to be weak?

Bottom line is this. The barbaric solutions have been in place as long as people have existed and have failed to curtail crime, war, povery or state sanctioned violence. Men with guns and their revenge based enforcment culture have failed to stop or even slow crime. And that same thinking continues to lead the world to rationalize violence as solutions. It is primative, barbaric thinking that is no better than the same ratonales that led socieites 5,000 years ago. For this mind frame, only the date and degree of technology have changed. Intelletual and moral evolution stopped then and has made little progress since.

It is time for new solutions. I, and others like me are not weak. We buck the status quo thinking led by testosterone fueled people who see violence as rational. We stand against this in favor of taking humanity forward. Our hearts do not bleed, our hearts advocate strengths that you seem incapable of even understanding. Stregths like compassion, forgiveness, non-violence and a respect for life that overcomes the animal need for vengence.

I still vividly remember the Hifi killer's execution while I was in college in the same prison in Utah. I spent that night watching people celebrate death as we protested capital punishment. Popcorn and laughter filled the air on their side, like a rabid mob lusting for blood and revenge. While on our side people feel a profound sense that we had sanctioned the death of another human being.

Now tell me who is more barbaric and weak?!

tkoind2

Who is more barbaric? The killer and don't you ever forget it. The people celebrating were just being stupid.

Tell me one more thing. Is the pro-capital punishement person celebrating the death of another human being really any better than the murderer? Don't both celebrate suffering, fear and death of another human being? If you are in favor of killing another human being, then you are no better than the killer executed. Perhaps even less respectable because at least that person had the will to carry out the act on his own. While those lusting for state murder cower behind the moral opiate of letting the state do the very same thing, murder someone in cold blood.

Gurukun and thepro.

Do the research into what it costs to keep a prisoner on death-row for 1yr vs general population.

Death-Row is NOT cheap and many on Death-Row are there for MANY years = BIG Bucks.

More tax-dollars are spend for death-row than for most of the rest of the prison population.

HTH.

But today the state was the killer smartacus. Coldly with clear mind killing another human being. Rationalize it all you want, but murder is murder mate. Killing is still killing. Capital punishment makes us no better than the murderer. We both, killer and society, resort to violence to solve our problems. That is barbaric!

The barbaric solutions have been in place as long as people have existed and have failed to curtail crime, war, povery or state sanctioned violence.

that's because capital punishment isn't across the board, nor is it a daily occurrance. Speed up the occurances and publisize it, and I guarantee you that crime will go down. But in the mean time, yes, it hasn't curtailed crime, but it took those people out of society didn't it? Hell, one of those people put to death could have killed your family.

tkoind2: Criminals will surely still exist with a system of capital punishment or not. Whether it serves as a deterrent for crime or not, I still think it is a fitting punishment for these people who commit the worst crimes. I wouldn't want any chance of them ever being back on the streets, and they will not be missed when they are dead. You can go ahead and forgive them all you want, but go and talk to the families of victims of murder and see what the real cost is.

Zenny: Well these men being on death row for many years is because of a broken judicial system. I would execute them quicker.

Broken Judicial system or not. $60.000+ per inmate(rough average) are tax-dollars that could be better used.

The death penalty should be abolished. It's just common sense.

BS Gurukun. You have no evidence at all to support that notion. Criminals have said "death penalty is not a deterrent." Plus your arugment completely fails to deal with the broader moral issue of sanctioning violence as a societal solution to problems. If society perpetuates the role of violence, how can it then expect people as individuals to refrain from violence. It is a crackhead telling a cocain user not to take drugs. It is absurd.

As for revenge. Does killing that person really protect you from anything? No, most killings are personal in America and elsewhere. So this guy was no threat to you in all likelihood. Using your logic let's kill anyone who is a potential threat to our family. Absurd!

The people can be removed from society on a cheaper cost through normal prison. there is NO need to kill anyone. It is morally unjustifyable.

One more thought. We have seen several people released from death row over the past few years who were later proven innocent. If you speed up the process, your greatly increase the chance that you will kill someone innocent. It is easy to sit there at your PC and say that is a risk you are willing to take, but it isn't you or your life on the line is it?

So long as one innocent can be killed by your process, it is morally unthinkable. Unless you can tell me you would put your own life on the line with this policy, then your words are empty since only others are at risk.

thepro. Killing that person does not restore the loved one to life. It does not even provide closure and many people report they later remain haunted by the loss. Nothing is served by this. Even the cost balance doesn't make sense.

When you then weigh in the negative impact by advocating violence, where is your up side other than barbaric desire for revenge?

Zenny11. Agreed, but what is society doing to curtail crime? Are we solving poverty? Are we providing avenues of escape for people caught in the bad communities? Are we spending money on better education opportunities?

People with a lot invested in their lives don't typically go down this path to violence. But in much of the world, far too many people exist in worlds where there is no hope, no avenue out and so support for change.

SuperLib - You might change your mind if your family member or friend was brutally tortured and/or murdered.

Sarge, why would he/she do that? Seriously what does your death penalty accomplish? It is more expensive. Doesn't restore life to the dead. Doesn't benefit society because other non-violent solutions equally get people off the street. So is your point that revenge is ok? It is ok to kill as long as it is for revenge?

I think my loved ones would not want me to wish another person harm on their behalf.

tkoind2.

Agreed taht more needs to be done to adress the causes of crimes and lets face it most countries legal systems are way too outdated.

From a report on CNN/J I just heard that the movement to get rid of the Death Sentence is growing fast.

So the USA might soon join the large section of the world that abolishes the Death Sentence.

Zenny11. I sincerely hope so. It would be nice to think of my home country as one willing to take the moral high ground. We can hope for our culture to evolve.

tkoind2 - Same goes for you. And it's not revenge. It's justice.

Sarge and when your system kills an innocent wrongly accused? Then what is it? Is it still justice?

Well said Patrick Smash.

Yanks clearly take a great deal of pleasure and cathartic excitement from dramatic media coverage of the lead-up to a scheduled execution, be it hanging, gas, electric chair, lethal injection or even a (non-judicial) fatal tasering. Far be it from me to deprive them of their fun.

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/06/18/lkl.donna.nu.utah.execution.cnn?hpt=T1

Victim's girlfriend's opinion on execution.

Keech2. Thank you for that post. With that much risk, how can anyone in good conscience advocate the death penalty in a system so obviously flawed and capable of killing an innocent person. Supporting the death penalty is supporting murder. Plain and simply unjustifiable.

Thepro:"Where are all these falsely accused people on death row? I would say the number of them would be very small."

I guess you haven't been reading the news lately here in Japan were they just released another innocent man who was on death row but finally found innocent due to DNA and there are plenty more in the USA who have been in or are in the same situation.

One of the last people to be executed in Canada is now clearly considered to have been innocent and the reason his trial and sentencing was so poorly done and rushed was because the victim was a well connected American and the political pressure was on high for revenge not justice if they wanted justice then they would have waited till the real killer was caught, but this poorly educated man with few resources was the perfect scapegoat as is often the case.

Even one innocent executed is one too many once dead you cannot bring them back.

Just look at the UK, Canada and even the US military in recent year they have all given "posthumous" innocent verdicts for men executed during WW1 and WW2 that they now know were not guilty of anything!

What good is that? Closure for the families? I would bet they would have rather had their loved ones alive.

Seems the pro-death penalty crowd have retired from the field of debate. With the previous post's insight to the murder of innocent people through state sanctioned killing, how can anyone stand up and support the death penalty.

Check the CNN link I posted. I have very deep respect for her.

I reread the article above(been updated).

Interesting his last words about "closure" and that a Victims family tried to help get him commuted to Life-sentence.

I know this is very strange to read, but the US has so many ways of eliminating targets, they could just give a life sentence, then covertly eliminate the person. This overt method is not needed anymore w/ the technology now used after the Cold War. Oops, this may still be a secret?

It's all a very cowardly proccedure if you ask me. 5 shooters, one with blanks so even they supposedly don't know if they did it, and the condemend that doesn't even get the choice to look his killers in the eye, hog-tied with a hood.

He asked to die this way so I suppose he got what he wanted. Still, it's pretty barbaric the death penalty, especially after waiting 25 long years for it to be served.

Utah, the state where the gun culture continues to thrive, perhaps is not so uncomfortable with firing squads as it might be elsewhere.

That said, the death penalty remains a state sanctioned revenge killing. People justify it by calling it justice. Hard to imagine a greater misnomer.

tkoind2, I underwrite everything you said. Thank you.

Sarge: You might change your mind if your family member or friend was brutally tortured and/or murdered.

I could easily ask you if you'd want to kill a guy if someone in your family were raped, and you'd probably say that you would, but I doubt you'd stand here today and tell me that the death penalty is the appropriate punishment for rape. I'd rather have punishment decided by rational 3rd parties than emotional victims right after the crime.

Besides, if your example were an absolute, then we'd see more countries adopting execution as a form of punishment. That's just not the case.

“I would like the firing squad, please.”

Anyone else thinks this would make a great t-shirt?

Please! lol

Gardner shot to death at least two people. And yet he was given steak, lobster tail, apple pie, vanilla ice cream and 7-UP.

"When your system kills an innocent wrongly accused? Then what is it? Is it still justice?"

No, then it's a travesty. The DP should be invoked only when there is no doubt of the guilt of the accused. And believe me, Gardner was guilty as hell.

"Execution does not save tax dollars"

This is ridiculous. If the murderer lives even just for a few more months after the conviction, that should cost the taxpayers more than an execution.

Sarge.

He was on Death-Row for over 20Yrs, so he cost the tax-payers 20yrs x 60.000USD(average cost can go as high as 90.000USD/yr).

For the same money he could have lived 2~3 life-sentences in general population.

These are the costs that the guys are talking about.

"He was on Death-Row for over 20 Yrs"

See, this is what I'm talking about. He should have been executed within a few days or weeks after his conviction.

"20yrs x 60.000USD"

And on top of that he's given steak, lobster tail, apple pie, vanilla ice cream and 7-UP. I can't stand it....

The death penalty is not justice. It's state sanctioned murder.

Taka

I wonder if the victims family members are allowed to take part.

All this discussion about the wrong people being executed for crimes they did not commit has no bearing to THIS discussion. The man was in court for the murder of a bartender, tried to escape, and in the process shot and killed a lawyer. THIS GUY WAS NOT INNOCENT!!!! (Would another exclamation point make it more emphatic?) Killing someone in court is a capital crime and capital crimes are subject to the death penalty. The State didn't assign the penalty, a jury of 12 people did. The State then said there was no reason to second-guess the jury, followed by the U.S. courts up to and including the Supreme Court. Good riddance.

Fadamor, good points! There may be people in prison who may be innocent, but there are a lot there that aer truly guilty and some on Death Row. I say for those who are found gulity beyond a shadow of a doubt (like in the case of some of the more infamous killers recently convicted in the US) give them one year for appeals and then carry out the sentence.

As costly as an execution is, keeping them in jail for a full life sentence is still more expensive.

Also, there's nothing wrong with executions. The way it was carried out was a little strange, but it was his legal decision and that cannot be considered wrong by any means. Modern civilization is STILL build upon lives and the loss of them. We've not somehow ascended past this point and I doubt we ever will. This is evidenced in wars, executions, and everyday crimes. This IS civilized.

While I do not believe executions will deter a few people, it sure is a deterrent to many, and I believe they should stay for those many who value life, yet sit on the thin line between holding back and a major crime.

Why is the death penalty purely revenge? Sometimes the death penalty is the only punishment that fits the crime. Not all death penalties sentences are motivated by revenge.

They probably should have let the family members of the victims pull the trigger.

If people who don't want their taxes used to house and feed murderers, why don't they elect judges that give more lenient sentences? Say, two years for murder - that would be much cheaper than either life without the possibility of parole or the death penalty. Just saying, you know.

Taka313: "The death penalty is not justice. It's state-sanctioned murder."

That's your opinion. Millions of others consider it to be justice.

borscht - Your solution would result in more murders by the freed murderers.

Sarge - Your solution would result in more murders by the freed murderers.

But less tax money spent on housing murderers for life and/or death which is what some people seem to want.

As much as I am against the death penalty, for life of me, I cannot figure why they would give the condemned a choice. His victims did not have one.

Anyway, killing is wrong. All that needed to be done was to lock him up permanently in a dark hole. The thing about dead people is they don't lament their condition quite like a living guy in a dark hole.

Sarge said: That's your opinion. Millions of others consider it to be justice.

Its both justice and state-sanctioned murder. They don't cancel eachother out. The guy deserved to die, yes, but society does not deserve to be degraded by killing him. It is counter productive. It is hypocritical as it justifies killing as long as you got your "reasons" in order.

borscht said: But less tax money spent on housing murderers for life and/or death which is what some people seem to want.

But, for once, it would be an appropriate use of tax money.

"The guy deserved to die"

So he got what he deserved.

If only everybody got what they deserved.

Taka

Taka 313: "If only everybody got what they deserved."

Yeah, if only.

Moderator: Stay on topic please.

borscht: "tax money spent on housing murderers"

MistWizard: "But, for once, it would be an appropriate use of tax money"

LOL!

I echo Fadamor's remarks. Had this been a case of questionable witnesses, planted evidence, or a forced confession, then I would agree to keep someone like him off deathrow, until it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But this guy was caught in the act! They even showed some footage from the incident. Pretty chilling stuff.

But, no matter what folks might write, I don't think people will really know how they truly feel until they are directly victimized by such a crime.

One thing we never hear about is how murdering someone affects the guards who do the murdering. How does it affect their psyche.

I have to wonder how murder supporters like sarge would feel if someone decided that sarge's callous attitude toward life should be visited on his family.

What would happen if someone saw sargie cheerleading an execution and decided sarge should feel the same pain so they rape and murder his family. Maybe they're so upset, they make him watch.

I wonder then if sarge would feel it was worth it to cheerlead death like a troll.

Taka

This is what I dont get about liberals, why do all you feel sorry for murderers and not their victims?

Why hasn't anyone defended the victims' right to live?! I support the death penalty. If there is indisputable evidence that a person is found guilty, that person should suffer, preferably the same fate their victims met.

The principle of "an eye for an eye" punishment system has it's origins in The Code of Hammurabi, sixth king of Babylon.

Hey why just stop there? The Code consists of 282 laws. Let's follow them to the letter of the law.

For instance:

If a son strike his father, his hands shall be hewn off. If a man strikes a pregnant woman, thereby causing her to miscarry and die, the assailant's daughter shall be put to death. If anyone commits a robbery and is caught, he shall be put to death. >During an unsuccessful operation a patient dies, the arm of the surgeon must be cut off.

Most people are for capital punishment, I believe. However, we should understand that capital punishment sends a message that it is acceptable to kill in some circumstances and that society has a disregard for the sanctity of life. The question of whether or not the death penalty deters murder, it is very doubtful that killers give much thought to punishment before they kill.

In fact, most murder victims’ survivors will never see the murderer of their loved one sentenced to death.

Likewise, James R. Acker's study, Demystifying Crime and Criminal Justice, "The myth of closure suffers from assumption that the offender’s execution is a desirable outcome for all murder victims’ survivors. However, many parents, spouses, children, and siblings of some murder victims stand adamantly opposed to capital punishment."

We might need to rethink whether we are really getting a a sense of “closure” or just seeking revenge. Let alone the other side issue, wrongful conviction and that African Americans have made up quite a larg portion of death row inmates.

Why is it that death penalty cases always bring out the people who are sympathetic to the killers? It really is hard to understand, how people can come up with reasons why people like this, deserve to live. Thats really what its about. I mean in England and most of Europe, there is no crime you can committ, that deserves death. If you went out and tortured, raped, and murdered a hundred women, they still wouldn't execute you. Hell, you'd probably get out in 30 years. That to me, is simply mind boggling. In my mind, there needs to be a punishment, beyond simply putting someone in a cage. That penalty is death.

The biggest problem with the death penalty is not having it, but rather, that it takes so long to carry it out. That there are so many barriers thrown up around it, making it more and more difficult for someone deserving it, to finally be executed. Even if a prisoner demands the death penalty, and pushes to have himself executed, it would take at minimum 5 years. More people end up dying on death row then are executed. What needs to happen, is that the death penalty needs to be re-evaluated. Not to eliminate it, but to speed things up. To make it so if you are found guilty, and deserving of the death penalty, 5 years later, they flip the switch. Not 25 to 35 years later.

Molenir said: Why is it that death penalty cases always bring out the people who are sympathetic to the killers?

To save what is sure to be a LOT of pointless reading, could you name those who are sympathetic to the killer? If he were not already dead, I would hope a rock fell and destroyed both his legs and he had to live like that for a very long time...just not by hand.

I think you are greatly confused. I don't think posters are shedding a tear for the dead monster. But if you name those names, I will have a look. Remember, you did say "people", so I hope you got more than one.

but it isn't you or your life on the line is it?

tkoind2-exactly!!! Because I think of the consequenses (Death Penalty) it will never be me in that perdicament.

And also, please stop saying that my ( and I think I'm speaking for Sarge too) thinking is wrong, unacceptable or whatever you may think. I respect your opinions, respect mine (ours). Don't try to change my thinking on a message board. It wont happen.

Just read all the way through this one. This is an ongoing argument that will never end. In regards to to this particular case, I have no idea why they cater to requests from a death row inmate. If your only intention is to kill this inmate, then just do it and stop wasting any more time and money than you already have.

All the people here talking about taking "the moral high ground" and terming capital punishment aren't doing anyone any favors. If someone has killed another human being in some sick and twisted manner. (and there is no mistaking it) There is nothing more they can do for our society, in or out of jail. I'm not saying off everyone, but there ARE cases that call for it. The fact that we are feeding, clothing, and supporting these people through tax dollars is a slap in the face to ALL of us as a society. They have no respect for humanity and yet humanity has to offer them something. I'm sorry, but it defies logic and the balance of nature. I know we like to think we're so advanced and smarter than anything else on the earth, but sometimes it really is just that simple. You're not taking any high ground, you're just kidding yourself.

missed something there - "terming capital punishment as barbaric"

UGH! This for me is a tuff subject, one because I know that many innocent ppl have been killed by the death penalty which is very sad..should we then go and get the ppl who mistakenly condemned him along with the judge and execute them as well, do you know that in this world what comes around goes around..I cannot defend a persons wrong doings but I cannot kill someone because of there bad choices either...But they should pay the price..I am against the death penalty....who are we to decide who is to live or die? I feel if you are for the death penalty then you are just as bad as the person who you kill..We are not God to decide the fate of others.

And also, please stop saying that my ( and I think I'm speaking for Sarge too) thinking is wrong, unacceptable or whatever you may think. I respect your opinions, respect mine (ours). Don't try to change my thinking on a message board. It wont happen.

That's kind of what logical debate is, Gurukun: an attempt to change someone's opinion with sound reasoning. However, I'm afraid I haven't seen any from your side.

What's wrong with wasting somebody. Obviously he/she did something to get the death penalty, right?

This is a circular argument; 'he deserves the death penalty because he was awarded the death penalty'.

Solves the problem of prison over crowding. Solves the problem of world over crowding. Saves the problem of wasting my tax dollars to have the worst of the worst being given room and a hot meal three times a day.

False. None of these 'problems' are solved by the death penalty.

that's because capital punishment isn't across the board, nor is it a daily occurrance. Speed up the occurances and publisize it, and I guarantee you that crime will go down. But in the mean time, yes, it hasn't curtailed crime, but it took those people out of society didn't it?

You've contradicted your own argument here. And the death penalty isn't a deterrent to crime because people don't plan on being caught. How does lessening time spent on death row address this fact?

Furthermore, people deserve respect. Sound logic deserves respect. No opinion deserves any amount of respect.

I'm pro death penalty, but this type should be banned. They said of the 5 shooters, they gave 1 shooter a blank bullet....guess that's suppose to help them sleep at night. In California, we use the gas chamber, which is fine. Some US states still use the electric chair, some they give poison drugs, and I think there is even a state that does hanging, like they did in the 1860's. The death penalty in america is necessary to punish murderers, and to prevent future serious crimes. It's a must.

False. None of these 'problems' are solved by the death penalty.

How does it not solve over crowding? 1,000,000 inmates, minus one, equals 999,999. Simple math.

If it were your brother, sister, mother or father would you still support the death penalty? Would you still be thirsting for blood? If you said yes, then you would be lying or you are not human.

Funny, when a person is executed any where in the world many American's call it barbaric. But if it carried out in our own nation then that is a-okay!

Does the state have the right to kill it's citizens? Think about it before you answer that question blindly.

Why would I change my opinion if it were my family? If they did something that deserved the death penalty, why would I try and stop it? Why am I lying or would be lying? I'd probably dis-own them before they were hung anyways. Does the state have the right to kill it's citizens? Why not? Did that person have the right to murder someone? Now, can I take my blind fold off?

In this case, the killer murdered even though he was in prison. It's just an extreme example of the innocent people murdered by the lack of a death penalty. That's indisputable. The debate is where you balance the two.

Of course, there will always be plenty of people who blindly support more murder of innocent people by convicted murderers. You can tell who they are by their ridiculous logic and name calling in discussions like these.

Gurukun,

How does it not solve over crowding? 1,000,000 inmates, minus one, equals 999,999. Simple math.

If you really think one executed inmate (or 1,0000 for that matter) “solves” overcrowding, then your solution is also simple (though not in the same way as the math).

If only California had the death penalty, they wouldn’t currently be appealing a federal ruling that ordered a reduction in the state's prison population by 40,000 inmates because the overcrowding was found to be in violation of the Eight Amendment*.

Oh . . . this just in . . . they do have the death penalty. Back to the drawing board.

*http://tinyurl.com/29ga2mn

bdiego,

You can tell who they are by their ridiculous logic and name calling in discussions like these.

Care to point out some of this "ridiculous" logic? Or how about positing some of your own?

Do try to avoid fallacious logic like this straw man you’re furiously swinging at now:

Of course, there will always be plenty of people who blindly support more murder of innocent people by convicted murderers.

bdiego,

It is worth noting that your first attempt at an "indisputable" argument doesn’t even get the facts in the story straight:

In this case, the killer murdered even though he was in prison.

Wrong. In this case, the killer murdered while on trial for another murder.

It's just an extreme example of the innocent people murdered by the lack of a death penalty. That's indisputable. The debate is where you balance the two.

No, it’s an example of you misunderstanding the sequence of events. Your argument is apparently that the lack of a death sentence in a trial which hadn’t even convicted him yet led to the attorney’s death during the same unfinished trial. What’s indisputable is that one event cannot cause another if it didn’t happen first.

False premises can only lead to incorrect conclusions.

Gurukan...it would solve overcrowding, if we killed thousands AND thousands of inmates a year...

There were 37 executions in 2008.[2] That is the lowest number since 1994 (largely due to lethal injection litigation) There were 52 executions in the United States in 2009, 51 by lethal injection and 1 by electric chair...

To many if you ask me, and i wonder how many of they, may have even been innocent..

So what are you saying "Gurukan" we should kill more ppl, just so we wont have over crowded prisons..

With modern forensic technology, it is unlikely for evidence in a crime to be false. What you hear of innocent executions are dated back in the past. These cases have been brought up because of the advances in technology to see whether the execution was justified or not. I have faith in today's forensics, so when the convicted person is sentenced to death, I will believe that the person was guilty of the crime and didn't deserve mercy.

@Cyraus With modern forensic technology, it is unlikely for evidence in a crime to be false. And just to you, when did this modern technology start?..this happened in 2004..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barry-scheck/innocent-but-executed_b_272327.html

SiouxChief, he tried to murder three people. Two he succeeded, and the other one was while he was in prison after being convicted. It was my mistake to think he actually murdered the other man, but it doesn't really change the fact that he should never have been let out after attempted murder. He murdered two people after that.

bdiego,

SiouxChief, he tried to murder three people. Two he succeeded, and the other one was while he was in prison after being convicted. It was my mistake to think he actually murdered the other man, but it doesn't really change the fact that he should never have been let out after attempted murder. He murdered two people after that.

You still don't have the facts right. He didn't try to murder three people. He was never let out of prison nor was he ever convicted of attempted murder before killing Otterstrom or Burdell. He escaped from a hospital while serving a sentence for robbery, killed Otterstrom and then Burdell while on trial for the Otterstrom murder.

There is certainly something to be said about the incompetence of the officials both in the hospital where he escaped and in the courthouse where he came into possession of a firearm and was able to kill the attorney (he was also able to climb a wall and escape once before the hospital escape). However, that "something" isn't that a death sentence would have prevented either of the other murders as robbery isn't a capital crime in Utah (or any state, for that matter).

So what are you saying "Gurukan" we should kill more ppl, just so we wont have over crowded prisons

No, what I'm saying is that because we have over crowded prisons, we should get rid of the hard core criminals. We need to stop being convict lovers and worrying about thier rights. When they murdered, they lost thier rights to live amongst us.

No, what I'm saying is that because we have over crowded prisons, we should get rid of the hard core criminals. We need to stop being convict lovers and worrying about thier rights. When they murdered, they lost thier rights to live amongst us.

This argument is invalid; the premise that the death penalty solves overcrowding is false.

What about the people who didn't murder but are still sentenced to death . . . ? We needn't worry about their rights?

Sorry just my thoughts here, but if your so against ppl mudering, then why are you for the death sentence, its still killing..to me, its like throwing a stone at a glass house...your no better than they are..I'm not a convict lover, but who am I to decide who dies..and when?..

What about the people who didn't murder but are still sentenced to death . . .

What about the people that did murder...? We shouldn't worry about thier rights. That's what I've been saying from the get go. If you DID the crime, soyonara!

What about the people that did murder...? We shouldn't worry about thier rights.

You're just dodging the question. How can you expect anyone to take your position seriously if you're unwilling to address all aspects of the issue?

What about people who didn't murder but are still sentenced to death?

If it were your brother, sister, mother or father would you still support the death penalty? Would you still be thirsting for blood? If you said yes, then you would be lying or you are not human.

Funny, when a person is executed any where in the world many American's call it barbaric. But if it carried out in our own nation then that is a-okay!

Does the state have the right to kill it's citizens? Think about it before you answer that question blindly.