For those opposed to the death penalty, explain why it shouldn't be used in this case

I think things need to be undone in the system. Hard labor. Inmates cry about their rights after infringing upon other's.

If the criminal gets tired of having to work then give them the option of going into a chamber and blowing their self up. Too many are a burden on society in or out of prison.

Something needs to change.

Ok you get the privilege of my first ever post on ATS. I really do think that you have this all topsy-turvy.

It is a well recorded fact that a black victim gets less publicity than a ‘white’ victim. It is also a well recorded fact that a ‘black’ perpetrator gets more publicity than a white perpetrator.

As to the punishment……you give him the choice of going through what his victim did….or twenty years solitary confinement. I reckon he would choose the former, and justice would be done.

[edit on 6-6-2008 by nessie2uk]

maybe they shouldn't kill him.. but they should do the EXACT same stuff to him, then let God decide if he should die

An idea that doesn't cause anyone else to sink to the perp's level (through punishment by torture), or force another person to suffer pangs of guilt for pulling the switch on his life (execution), keeps the perp away from everyone else (he can't "contaminate" anyone else's attitude, doesn't require any judge to pronounce a death sentence & still gives him one last freedom of choice:
Stick him in a hole with no food or water, just a cup of poison. Leave him unattended for 30 days or until he dies, whichever comes first. He has the choice of suicide by poison, a quick death...Or slow painful death by starvation & dehydration.

[edit on 6-6-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

Originally posted by nessie2uk
Ok you get the privilege of my first ever post on ATS. I really do think that you have this all topsy-turvy.

It is a well recorded fact that a black victim gets less publicity than a ‘white’ victim. It is also a well recorded fact that a ‘black’ perpetrator gets more publicity than a white perpetrator.

As to the punishment……you give him the choice of going through what his victim did….or twenty years solitary confinement. I reckon he would choose the former, and justice would be done.

[edit on 6-6-2008 by nessie2uk]

Care to post some evidence of these "well recorded facts"?

Slightly consumed with everyday whatsits but I will back up my assertions with the appropriate papers as soon as.

reply to post by tebyen

you are a joke.
This country`is so lost.

Because I don't consider death a punishment, I consider it an escape.

Originally posted by Earthscum

Originally posted by 3vilscript
In my opinion we could save a monkey or a cute lab rat by allowing this man to live. Why not let some good come out of his life. We can experiment on him and it would not be inhumane, because a human does not behave like he does.

Hey, why not? Even after testing on animals and finding no side-effects, we often do come across side effects inherant to only humans. I'd trade the guy for a monkey! Still should cut off his hands and feet, though... keep him from breaking out of his cage.

This would be a HUGE DETERANT to criminals...WAYYY moreso than the death penalty.

This is a truly inspired and FINE idea.
Lets send this idea to our congressman!!!

This man is a severely damaged human being. It seems he has been since childhood. I think for some people, there's just nothing that can be done for them.
I say Kill him.
Not as a punishment. What good is there in punishment? Kill him to get rid of him. Kill him because for him to remain alive is simply a wast of time and he is a negative and damaging force in this would. Also, he's too dangerous. His continued existence is an unnecessary risk.

I know I said that punishment is pointless, but I'm not involved or directly affected. If I was, I would not be able to be so objective. I'm not standing on a pedestal, I am human. If he did any of those things to somebody I care about, I would be in blind rage and want to kill him myself to vent my hate. But I'm not involved or personally affected, so I'm voicing my opinion as part of society.

This is only my opinion.

Vengeance or punishment isn't what the (supposed) justice system exists for. It exists to protect society from individuals such as this. Clearly the fear of the death penalty isn't deterring people like this, or they wouldn't commit the acts that they commit. Moreover, their death or suffering will not balance some sort of arbitrary cosmic pair of weights, making up for the suffering of the victim. What is done can never be undone.

The only reasons people commit such horrible acts are 1) they have a neurological disorder, or 2) for some sick reason they feel justified in what they're doing, even if that justification is only their own twisted gratification (which falls under #1 actually, at least as I see it.) If we treat them in kind, provided we don't suffer from #1, then the only difference between us and them is that we can say, "You did it to me first."

That isn't sufficient for me.

Apart from all that, I have compassion even for monsters such as this and don't wish suffering upon them. I know that isn't a popular or easily acceptable sentiment.

Again, this is only my opinion, and I respect and understand the OP’s point of view as well.


[edit on 6/7/2008 by AceWombat04]

Why shouldn't the death penalty be used in this case? Ok here goes.

The death penalty in my view isn't a punishment, the subject suffers a short moment of terror and then is no longer being punished (unless you beleive in hell).

We cannot be sure hell exists so i think we should punish him on earth, he should be locked up for his entire life in a maximum scurity prison with no chance of early parol. He should be left, in a small, dank, dark cell with just enough food to support his body.

That's what i call punishment, i'd take death over 50 years of that any day. The death penalty isn't a punishment, it's avoiding a punishment completely. I find the idea of 50 years in prison more of a deterrant than death.

The death penalty is simply a short sighted vengeance, it makes the victim or their immediate family feel justified in some way, it's more effective psychologically then knowing he's in prison i guess. However vengeance is not what the legal system is about. Should we really let our emotions rule our system?

"The law is reason free from passion" - Aristotle

For those saying the death penalty is a deterrent, well i'm afraid not. The figures show that in states with the death penalty the murder rates often go up, maybe violence begets violence. There are 3 main reasons to commit crimes of a violent nature like murder or in this case torture.

1) Compulsion. Those that are driven by a psychological disorder to commit their crimes. People like serial killers who kill for pleasure are under this category. These people can't be dissuaded by any means, the drive is to strong. It's like trying to take a starving tiger in a cage with a cow and convincing the tiger not to eat it. This man sounds like he's under this category, he got off on the torture and the power he had over another human being.

2) Money. This would be the professional killer. The death penalty won't stop these people because when they kill someone they honestly think they'll be getting away with it.

3) Crime of passion. This would fall under the idea of someone coming home to find his wife in bed with another man. In a moment of blind rage he might kill the other guy. This crime cannot be prevented by the death penalty because there is no logical reasoning behind it. The man who commits such a crime doesn't sit back and think it through, he just reacts with the animal part of his brain.

The death penalty is not a deterrent, it is not a punishment. The only argument that could possibly be made for it is this, it saves money. That's it, it saves money becuase you don't have to pay for someone to be caged up for 50 years. Is this really enough to use it? Prison for life yes, death penalty no.

[edit on 7-6-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]

Originally posted by Earthscum

Originally posted by 3vilscript
In my opinion we could save a monkey or a cute lab rat by allowing this man to live. Why not let some good come out of his life. We can experiment on him and it would not be inhumane, because a human does not behave like he does.

Hey, why not? Even after testing on animals and finding no side-effects, we often do come across side effects inherant to only humans. I'd trade the guy for a monkey! Still should cut off his hands and feet, though... keep him from breaking out of his cage.

Can i just say that i find this frightening. I'm not a liberal here, i have some very conservative views on prison and punisment. However if you start doing the kind of things you say then we may as well hold our hands up and call ourselves nazis. I hate to equate it with them but that's the mentality you're after here. Once you start experimenting on human beings against their will then you have lost society. Josef Mengele, the "Angel of Death" experimented on prisoners. Not just jews and mental patients, he began on rightfully imprisoned people, criminals.

It's a slippery slope, doing such a thing would make us as bad as the criminal we are punishing. A society can be judged on how it treats it's prisoners, i can't remember who said that but it seems quite true. If you start doing that to criminals it opens the flood gates, eventually it'll be done to other useless members of society. First the life term prisoners, then simply burglars and petty thieves, then the long term mental patients, then who knows what?

Be very careful when you suggest such things.

[edit on 7-6-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]

You do realize that putting someone in a locked-away cell IS a form of torture, aye? It's just not as hands-on. "Out of sight, out of mind", right? Isn't this similar to the argument used in court when parents get caught locking their kids in closets for years at a time? The law considers it torture and abuse, unless it's being done to the criminal, then it's Justice?

Every single person has some part of them that is 'sick' by today's moral standards and laws. Whether a person decides to act on them or not is part of what makes a person good or bad. It is just our primitive nature. We are, after all, just animals like all the rest of Earth's creatures. We just have the ability to think about what we do before we do it. All animals calculate risk vs. reward, but humans do it on a conscious and calculating level.

We are ALL scum of the earth.

BTW, on the idea proposed earlier to allow medical testing on this guy... that's the great thing about America (or at least USED to be...) is that we have a checks and balances system that would keep minor offenders out of labs. Only use extreme case violent offenders. Offenders that have no apparent regard for the life of others. Put 'recommended cases' in front of a panel for judgment. A jury, if you will. Seriously, we already do worse in regards to the death penalty, right? On the argument of past events, think seriously about this: The same people, instead of being killed and cremated, could've gave something back to society through testing. I'm not thinking about toxicity of certain minerals in lipstick, I'm talking genetic research. Things that actually matter, not lame-azz beauty product testing. I'm talking about the kind of research that benifits the human race... and NOT MONSATO. I don't think ANY person should go through what that company would do if they had the opportunity.

Anyways, I'm probably just blowing alot of hot air right now.

My Code of Ethics and Morals tells me that killing is the worst thing a person can do, life is too valuable to ever go to waste. However, if its necessary for the survival of the individual then death must be brought swiftly and "humanely" to the individual. But, I can see my the dilemma, as these values only pertains to me, and when I meant survival, I was talking about animals, for food.

I don't know what I would do if I was put Ms. Prunty situation, but I know one thing, she has all of the rights to determine his fate, since he is the one who inflicted all of the horrendous crime and acts on her, so I think its fair that she gets to determined all of charges and punishment, until she feels satisfied, granted these charges and punishment must be justified, and approved by the court fairly, though I would say after reading this articled, I would say death would certainty be on her list for punishment, and would certainly be approve by the court.

P.S. While I'm still against the death penalty, I completely agree with what ImaginaryReality1984 said. He's right, by killing him, you only save resources, money, and probably space for criminals with lighter crimes in prison.

[edit on 7-6-2008 by skyblueff0]

seriously, give me a gun id kill this guy myself.


animals like this dont deserve to live, once you overstep a certain boundary and do something like this guy did to another human being then imo your life becomes null and void, this guy has given nothing to society since his childhood and just robbed and killed his way through life, he needs to just be taken out of society. seriously one bullet is all that is needed.

Death Penalty. are you kidding me.
How bout this scumbag get the same treatment he gave that girl.
But if they do decide to kill this guy. It needs to be both barrels of a shotgun to the back of the head.

reply to post by thesaints2012


yep, death penalty in this case for sure!! You have to look at each case and then use the death penalty when warrented, easy. I wish it could be carried out alot faster though, because victim's families should not have to go through all the hell that they do over years of trails. That is true in-justice. IMHO

Originally posted by garyo1954
Honest answer:

Killing this guy is not going to stop one murder, one rape, or any other crime.
But it may cause the next person to go ahead a commit murder so that there would be no witnesses.

Another Honest Answer:

It will make sure that HE never has the chance to murder, rape or commit any other crime.