death penalty in Arnold´s land

Discussion in 'The Bike Cafe' started by el Ingles, Jan 17, 2006.

  1. el Ingles

    el Ingles New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2003
    Messages:
    730
    Likes Received:
    0
    Am I the only one to wonder at the execution of a 76 year-old man who was blind , añmost deaf , confined to a wheelchair had diabetes and cronic heart problems ? If you wanted to really punish the SOB then letting him live would probably be the nastiest thing you could do : so is Arnold trying to use the death penalty to restore his flagging electoral popularity ?
     
    Tags:


  2. Retro Grouch

    Retro Grouch New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    584
    Likes Received:
    1
    He's being executed for ordering the murder of witnesses while he was behind bars. I'm not a death penalty supporter, but I have no sympathy for this man.
     
  3. DiabloScott

    DiabloScott New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Messages:
    2,284
    Likes Received:
    2
    Arnold is not using the death penalty to bolster his ratings, but granting this guy clemency would probably have lowered them and that may have played part in his decision.

    We don't want to "do the nastiest thing we can do", we want violent subhuman scum convicted of the most atrocioius crimes imaginable to be executed as the proper punishment. Blind, diabetic, parapalegic vermin are still vermin.
     
  4. JohnO

    JohnO New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    0
    What I don't wonder about is the execution of a man who strangled his son's girlfriend because she was talking about his criminal activities, and then orchestrated the shotgun murder of three more people, including a 17 year old girl, while he was in jail.

    I'm not a death penalty advocate either, but in this case I have no problem with the outcome.
     
  5. Dondare

    Dondare New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    285
    Likes Received:
    0
    As I understand it, laws in Merrycar are made by Senators who are elected by the great unwashed to represent them. The death penalty exists there because it is what the Merrycan people want. The Guvner is also elected by the people to represent them and therefore to carry out their wishes. In a democracy, the Guvner has to obey and enforce the law.

    Except for the bit about having a licence to ride motorbikes, it would seem.
     
  6. CrippledCheatah

    CrippledCheatah New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    quite simply put, if you don't like the laws, i highly recommend you don 't break them.
    i personally don't like the death penalty, but in some cases, its justified. but what i find funny is that the repubs (GOP's) are pro-life, they are trying to abolish abortion. how can you be a death penalty advocate and pro-life advocate at the same time? :cool:
     
  7. DiabloScott

    DiabloScott New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Messages:
    2,284
    Likes Received:
    2
    Yeah, that's pretty much it. You could be elected senator yourself in several states. :rolleyes:
     
  8. 1988dist3champ

    1988dist3champ New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    And the Dems. are pro abortion and anti death penalty:cool:.
     
  9. Cod

    Cod New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2005
    Messages:
    89
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's a very crude definition of democracy. By that reasoning the majority are always right. Does that make Hitler a democrat, given that the majority of germans at the time supported his antisemitic ravings? A true democracy represents a broad range of views, and avoids extremes at both ends of the spectrum.
     
  10. Chance3290

    Chance3290 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2004
    Messages:
    621
    Likes Received:
    0
    :D :D :D

    Anybody notice the lack of attention this guy's execution got? I think this was because of two reason.
    1: The argument of "Give him life without parole. That way he can't harm anyone else." doesn't cut here since he was in for life before he ordered the other murders.
    2: It was Golden Globes night.
     
  11. cali-largeguy

    cali-largeguy New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2005
    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    0
    I live in Fresno where the 3 murders took place. Trust me, we had it covered by the local stations. The scumbag deserved to die irregardless of the fact that he's old, diabetic, etc. He got that way by being alive long enough for his body to start failing. Something the 17 year old he had killed will never know about.
     
  12. JDub7

    JDub7 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Think about it for a moment: The State took a man, strapped him down and then killed him. The question is not so much whether this killing is justified based upon the man's vicious criminal past, but rather whether it is ethical (or moral) for society to perform such an act?

    Are we (in the form of our Government) on a higher moral ground than the convicted when we execute a man? Many (at least in the posts so far) would argue that the answer is yes because the condemned man was evil. This logic requires that one assume it is less wrong to kill a "bad person" than to kill a "good person"? But if that were the case, wouldn't it require us to look at the character of the murder victim in determining whether a convicted killer should be put to death? Kill a "good person" go to jail - kill a "bad person" go to the death chamber. ("Well yes, you did kill that fellow, but lucky for you he really was a rotten guy, so we're only going to sentence you to life in prison.") That is a slippery and dangerous slope.



    My thought is that killing this man, no matter how evil he is, simply is not ethical. Each time we choose to execute someone, we loose a little piece of our humanity and contribute to the coarsening of our society.

     
  13. BimmsAndBices

    BimmsAndBices New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2005
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    1
    He should have been executed years ago, after he killed his first victim(s), before he was crippled and blind and deaf and killed more people. But no, they get appeal after appeal after appeal to prolong their pathetic, worthless life, while wasting actual human being's money. Good riddance to a piece of shit.
     
  14. Retro Grouch

    Retro Grouch New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    584
    Likes Received:
    1
    That kind of talk scares me. The appeal process is absolutely necessary because we don't always convict the right person.
     
  15. BimmsAndBices

    BimmsAndBices New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2005
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    1
    Your right, the appeal process is necessary. I think eveyone should get one, or two if absolutely needed. But I don't think that prisoners need to keep getting them after their second appeal is lost, that being the third time they are proven guilty. This guy just used it as a loophole to keep alive. Probably a religious guy and wanted to delay his trip to Hell.
     
  16. jhuskey

    jhuskey Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2003
    Messages:
    10,605
    Likes Received:
    339
    If you execute a killer your are a murderer,in some views.
    If you eat animals your are a murderer,in some views.
    If you eat palnts only,you are also taking life and are a murderer, in some views I suspect.

    Who has the moral high ground to say where the line should be drawn? Plants have a basic nervous system.Bacteria are struggling to survive.They live,reproduce and adapt to attack.

    My opinion, senseless, needless killing is murder.
    Now debate what is senseless.
     
  17. Chance3290

    Chance3290 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2004
    Messages:
    621
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with you about the appeals process. It is necessary, especially when you consider that a lot of criminals get a public defender who was probably not first in his class and has few connections and little money. Mistakes do happen.
    What troubles me is when it takes too long. Take tookie. Nevermind the books, the Nobel prize, snoppy dogg dogg... He was convicted, he did it, no question. But after 20 years all of his appeals have been rejected because...well because he was guility. But, supporters state saying 'tookie is innocent, he didn't do it. This was wrong with the trial, that was wrong with the jury.' Well now people, who know nothing of the facts of the case, start saying; "You can't execute this man, there are questions about his guilt. The trial wasn't fair." Now it makes the state look like they rushed to judgement and put the guy to death five minutes after the trial.

    And as far as Clarence was concerned, he should have been executed when he was healthy.
    Anyone know that Clarence has a heart attack a couple of years ago, and THEY REVIVED HIM!!!:eek: DOH!
     
  18. cydewaze

    cydewaze New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Messages:
    883
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not really correct, as implying that they're pro abortion means that they'd want everyone to have an abortion. They are in favor of individuals being able to make their own decision on abortion rather than having the government make it for them.

    It's like calling someone "pro religion" for wanting freedom of religion. He might choose to be an athiest, but the important thing is that the choice was his to make.
     
  19. tanggoman

    tanggoman New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2003
    Messages:
    469
    Likes Received:
    0
    This mo' fvcker more than deserves to die for the crimes he committed. Being blind, deaf and confined into a wheelchair... c'mon...
     
  20. MountainPro

    MountainPro New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,071
    Likes Received:
    1
    If we can draw a line then it should be down to the reasons for murder. Take survival for instance, we kill animals in order to eat and live. In prehistoric times this was murder for survival. If you get into a situation where you are in a life or death situation, during war, in prison riot or similar then you have a lawless state where you may be killed unless you kill your assailant.

    These may be classed by some people as murder. But to most rational thinkers, murder is pre-meditated and driven by emotion, not need. Murder is carried out by people who want to kill, not people who need to kill.

    The latest execution was not a matter of need. He was no threat to anyone.

    This is where i draw the line.


     
Loading...
Loading...