I wonder whether this will influence other states besides Ohio. I haven't found any further information about whether this doctor's testimony influenced the trial or the penalty phase of the trial. If it has, the issue might well be taken up in other states.

The death penalty has always been a cause for consternation for me.

It doesn't work well as a deterrent.

It doesn't thin the prison population down by much.

What's the point? Revenge perhaps?

If revenge is the motive; shouldn't it be public, painful and bloody so at least the message to evil doers would be graphic and unmistakable.

Somehow giving a criminal an overdose seem appropriately American.

Originally posted by whaaa
The death penalty has always been a cause for consternation for me.

It doesn't work well as a deterrent.

It doesn't thin the prison population down by much.

What's the point? Revenge perhaps?

If revenge is the motive; shouldn't it be public, painful and bloody so at least the message to evil doers would be graphic and unmistakable.

Somehow giving a criminal an overdose seem appropriately American.

The death penalty does work well as a deterrent. Even if it deters a few, it IS working. Many are detered from commiting crimes such as murder because they know what the punishment is. Plus, there are many states that do not have the death penalty......yet, the punishments they do have are not working to prevent all murders.

Many think that in order for a punishment to "deter" it must work 100% of the time....There is absolutely NO punishment that will deter 100% of the time.

Fact is, the deterent works enough for some, that some lives are saved.

I support the death penalty for those who choose to murder. But I also feel there needs to be absolute proof that the one convicted is convicted rightly so. Thank God for forensics!

There also should be a swift execution. Criminals - even those who get "life" rather then execution have a much too cushy life in prison. They get TV, pornography, drugs, visits from family and friends, a college education at tax payers expense, 3 meals a day, snack at the commissary...and the list goes on. THAT is not just punishment for a crime such as murder.

I believe that once someone murders another, they loose all rights to their life. I also don't see how it is inhumane. Being humane means you are respecting a person...you are showing kindness towards them...showing compassion towards a person. Criminals who murder deserve none of that - IMO.

And really, isnt living in a CAGE wearing crappy uniforms and getting crappy food and having the possibilty of being raped or murdered by other crimianls - isnt that rather inhumane too?

WTH is a just humane treatment for one who takes the life of an innocent? WTH does a murderer or a child pedophile deserve HUMANE treatment? They dont.

With that said....I think a better punishment then execution would be to throw a murderer or sexual predator in a hole with nothing but enough water and bread to sustain life and leave him here. With nothing else.




[edit on 7-4-2008 by greeneyedleo]

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

I believe that once someone murders another, they loose all rights to their life. I also don't see how it is inhumane. Being humane means you are respecting a person...you are showing kindness towards them...showing compassion towards a person. Criminals who murder deserve none of that - IMO.

WTH is a just humane treatment for one who takes the life of an innocent? WTH does a murderer or a child pedophile deserve HUMANE treatment? They dont.

I'm not arguing that the death penalty should be completely abolished, at least not in the most horrendous cases--torturers, serial killers, child murderers, etc. But it seems to me taking the person's life is drastic enough.

Our penal code (I think it's in the Bill of Rights) prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment;" doesn't killing a person in a way that wouldn't even be fit for animals fall into that category?