For you anti death penalty members…

[cebeu]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/30...est=latestnews

Hayes, still reeking of gasoline, gave an emotionless confession in which he told authorities how he sexually assaulted the mother after Komisarjevsky told him he had to "square things up" because the other man already had sexually assaulted one of the girls.

The 47-year-old Hayes said Komisarjevsky sexually assaulted Michaela, took cell phone pictures of her that he tried to e-mail to friends and doused her in gasoline,

Hayes' attorneys conceded much of the case on the first day of the trial and called only two witnesses...

First, I respect those having a differing opinion on the death penalty than I but I don’t agree with you on principal. I absolutely support having the death-penalty as an appropriate option within the prosecutorial arsenal in this country (ß my bias).

Second, I clearly appreciate intelligent dialogue about the application of the death penalty, a very different topic altogether and one always wrought with opinion, emotion and gray zone commentary. But I hope this thread doesn’t go that direction. That’s a topic for another day and frankly, I’m not a “kill em’ all” mantra kinda guy.

I have a very case-specific question for you anti’s regarding a current headline case. For some reason this one “grabbed me” when it surfaced a few years back and it has gotten under my skin since. I guess because while I’m numb to most violence and nothing has/does surprise me, this one just pisses me off in some strange way. I felt the same way about that little bitch Couey and his violence backed-up by confession.

Very simple question; “how can you not support the elimination of human excrement like this via state sanctioned termination when there is literal/physical evidence and straight-up confession?”

• Religious objection? Well…okay, I understand it but that’s never going to work for me.
• Moral or Constitutional objections? The State cannot/should not kill its own? Ok again but…nope…not accepting that either in this case but that's my stance and I'll respectfully disagree with yours.
• Other?

This case, assuming the outcome is conviction, still pending, and presuming the jury votes for death during the penalty phase, a presumption at this point, requires death. I just cannot understand any other mind-set.

I’ll be candid; I say death because I simply believe this level of violence warrants societal revenge, not just wrote, comfortable justice of conviction and life in the hard-bed.

I cannot even remotely comprehend passing through the remainder of my life, as this father will, with that horrid experience etched in my mind and knowing the vile perpetrators were still breathing. I just couldn’t do it.

[Zundfolge]

My only problem with the death penalty is that I don't trust the courts to get it right 100% of the time and I believe Blackstone's famous quote is 1000 times more applicable to the death penalty than simple imprisonment.

“It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”

[buffalobo]

In my opinion there is absolutely no reason for these two animals to continue to live after the jury returns guilty verdict. No appeal, no mercy. Public execution in the town square.


Full disclosure - I am a strong supporter of the Death penalty. As previously posted the general discussion is for another thread.

[OneGuy67]

I liked your post cebeu and agree with your opinion 100%!

[CareyH]

In my opinion there is absolutely no reason for these two animals to continue to live after the jury returns guilty verdict. No appeal, no mercy. Public execution in the town square.


Full disclosure - I am a strong supporter of the Death penalty. As previously posted the general discussion is for another thread.

+1

In cases like this I think they should be public and the father should get to lite the fire, no mercy for people like this.

[CrufflerSteve]

Sometimes I don't think I speak the same language as people here.

I completely agree that these people are the foulest scum. Their crimes are indescribable and the amount of suffering they have caused is enormous. If anybody deserves to die, they do. The problem is that you are using extreme cases to make your point.

How about a heinous crime but the defendant was convicted by dubious evidence and the public defender spent most of the trial asleep? How about someone convicted by recanted jailhouse snitch testimony? These are extremes from the other side.

How many innocent people are you willing to fry to execute these people. I believe Stalin said something like, "It is better that 10,000 innocent people be punished than one guilty escape." I can't buy that.

There has been some publicity, but probably not on Fox, about a case in Texas of an executed man convicted of burning his family to death. It came out that the arson investigators were way incorrect using outdated techniques and old wives tales. There was an investigation in progress that would have resulted in an official conclusion that an innocent man had been executed. Of course, the governor shut it down. Things like this bother me and make me less certain.

Steve

[Hoosier]

My only problem with the death penalty is that I don't trust the courts to get it right 100% of the time and I believe Blackstone's famous quote is 1000 times more applicable to the death penalty than simple imprisonment.

“It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”

I agree with Zundfolge. Your example case here is one in which the person confessed, presumably there's loads of forensic evidence, it's a slam dunk. However there are many DOCUMENTED instances of innocent people being convicted, and probably innocent people who have been killed.

Agree with it or not, the number of extra hoops put in place by state legislatures (such as mandatory appeal) in death penalty cases drives up their cost beyond that of incarcerating a prisoner for the rest of their lives.

I use to be pro-death penalty, but after stuff like the cases being overturned due to DNA evidence many years later, we're seeing that it's not as rare as had been hoped for innocent people to be convicted.

Maybe we just need an option for people facing a life term to commit seppuku and go out like a man.

H.

[cebeu]

The problem is that you are using extreme cases to make your point.

No Steve, I am not doing that here, far from it. Maybe I didn't articulate that well in my haste but...I tried to mitigate that.

[cebeu]

I agree with Zundfolge. Your example case here is one in which the person confessed, presumably there's loads of forensic evidence, it's a slam dunk. However there are many DOCUMENTED instances of innocent people being convicted, and probably innocent people who have been killed.

Agree with it or not, the number of extra hoops put in place by state legislatures (such as mandatory appeal) in death penalty cases drives up their cost beyond that of incarcerating a prisoner for the rest of their lives.

I use to be pro-death penalty, but after stuff like the cases being overturned due to DNA evidence many years later, we're seeing that it's not as rare as had been hoped for innocent people to be convicted.

Maybe we just need an option for people facing a life term to commit seppuku and go out like a man.

H.

I get all that, ad nauseum, that's why I tried to position with this specific case.

[cebeu]

My only problem with the death penalty is that I don't trust the courts to get it right 100% of the time

I don't either but thats a different discussion. That said, this case, confession, hard evidence, vile crime, is death deserved or not?