It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Georgia Plans to Execute a Mentally Retarded Man Tomorrow

page: 7
10
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Actuallly, solitary confinement is referred to the jail with a jail.

Or if you commit a crime, they add it on to your sentence or move you to a more secure ward and remove more rights.




posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by CoolerAbdullah786

Originally posted by WalterKovacs
reply to post by auraelium
 


It's revenge when someone makes it personal. This is nothing personal. It's the punishment for the crimes he committed. And it's protection against further crimes by this man. I harbor no grudge against this fellow. But that's not to say he shouldn't answer for his crimes as soon as possible. He took the right to live and love from a law abiding citizen, a citizen who followed the law herself. He must be held accountable for his crimes, he made his choice. He chose wrong.


He's not being put to death for the first crime. He was doing his time for the first murder. He is being put to death for killing a second person, an inmate.

From the article:


Warren Hill was convicted of a 1985 murder, and was sentenced to death after being convicted of beating a fellow inmate to death in 1990.


So your argument that he's being put to death for murdering a law abiding citizen is completely false.
edit on 20-7-2012 by CoolerAbdullah786 because: (no reason given)



I hope I got this quote thing right. So bear with me if it looks funky.
I never said he was being put to death due to the inmate killing. I said he was being punished for the crimes he has committed. So no, it's not false. Did you also to happen to look up about the first murder he committed to get a better idea of what kind of person he is like I did? I'm commenting on his entire record in regards to murder, not just the article you posted.

As for dropping drug incarcerations, I completely agree. (I'm not sure of this but ATS seems to block posts that directly mention specific drugs, I'm not sure on that, but just in case, I don't want you to get a post deleted.). There would be ALOT more space for people who would eventually get out and possibly become productive members of society. But not this man, time and again, he has shown no regard for the law. Why would we want someone to waste year after year in prison with no hope for release?
edit on 20-7-2012 by WalterKovacs because: Ha! I got the quote thing right!



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by km22453
reply to post by crawdad1914
 

Really, that list is not that long when you consider the number of inmates that have been in prison since 1970 in the US.


In my view the list is long enough to give pause. And remember It is not an easy matter to overturn convictions even with compelling mew evidence that comes forth. That makes me wonder how many were executed wrongly, that were not on that list provided.

Anyways here is another chart for comparisson showing the total numbers of death row prisoners state by state since 1968.

www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by WalterKovacs


I never said he was being put to death due to the inmate killing. I said he was being punished for the crimes he has committed. So no, it's not false.


I never said you said that. And yes it is false because you originally said in regard to him getting the death penalty that, "It's the punishment for the crimes he committed."

No. It's only punishment for the SECOND crime he committed which was the beating to death of a fellow inmate. The original crime which you implied he is receiving the death penalty for (which he didn't. He received life in prison) was when " He took the right to live and love from a law abiding citizen, a citizen who followed the law herself."

So as I said your premise is false.



I'm commenting on his entire record in regards to murder, not just the article you posted.


His "entire record" is irrelevant because he wasn't given the death penalty for his entire record.


But not this man, time and again, he has shown no regard for the law.


No, it wasn't time and time again. It was twice. And the second time was him beating an inmate, not a "law abiding citizen" or a "productive member of society." Now I'm not saying that this inmate didn't deserve to live. Of course he did, but when you and other people make negative comments about inmates how can I believe that you care about the inmate he killed?

Furthermore we don't know the details of this killing. Was he defending himself? Was it a prison fight that crossed the line? Was he the aggressor? I don't know. I mean he beat him to death. He didn't shank him. He didn't plot to kill him.



Why would we want someone to waste year after year in prison with no hope for release?


Well clearly "we" don't, but I do. And why? Because I do not believe in killing. I morally object to killing people, even people who kill. I truly believe in the sanctity of life, all life.
edit on 20-7-2012 by CoolerAbdullah786 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
Many peoples logic says if he killed an inmate he deserves to die.
But what really goes on in prison ?
Any animal will defend it self when cornered, how long does one have to suffer abuse till they defend themselves ?

Cooler love the t-shirt.
edit on 19-7-2012 by OLD HIPPY DUDE because: (no reason given)


That is a good point that needs to be highlited. Considering this mans mental capacity, it is likely he has suffered much abuse from fellow inmates.

Anyone who has done any study on the prison system , is well aware of the abuses that are allowed to go on inside the walls.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around why this man was even in, general population.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by CoolerAbdullah786

Originally posted by WalterKovacs


I never said he was being put to death due to the inmate killing. I said he was being punished for the crimes he has committed. So no, it's not false.


I never said you said that. And yes it is false because you originally said in regard to him getting the death penalty that, "It's the punishment for the crimes he committed."

No. It's only punishment for the SECOND crime he committed which was the beating to death of a fellow inmate. The original crime which you implied he is receiving the death penalty for (which he didn't. He received life in prison) was when " He took the right to live and love from a law abiding citizen, a citizen who followed the law herself."

So as I said your premise is false.



I'm commenting on his entire record in regards to murder, not just the article you posted.


His "entire record" is irrelevant because he wasn't given the death penalty for his entire record.


But not this man, time and again, he has shown no regard for the law.


No, it wasn't time and time again. It was twice. And the second time was him beating an inmate, not a "law abiding citizen" or a "productive member of society." Now I'm not saying that this inmate didn't deserve to live. Of course he did, but when you and other people make negative comments about inmates how can I believe that you care about the inmate he killed?

Furthermore we don't know the details of this killing. Was he defending himself? Was it a prison fight that crossed the line? Was he the aggressor? I don't know. I mean he beat him to death. He didn't shank him. He didn't plot to kill him.



Why would we want someone to waste year after year in prison with no hope for release?


Well clearly "we" don't, but I do. And why? Because I do not believe in killing. I morally object to killing people, even people who kill. I truly believe in the sanctity of life, all life.
edit on 20-7-2012 by CoolerAbdullah786 because: (no reason given)


Well, just in case you didn't know, the first person he killed was his girlfriend who he stabbed 11 times. As for the prison killing, that's an entirely another matter. I worked as a corrections officer for a couple of years and it's very difficult not to get into to trouble in there.
But here we go again. He killed two people, it may not be a lengthy crime spree, but wouldn't you agree with me that 1 killing is enough considering how you love life so much? How many murders would it take for you to realize that the guy has problem, not problem with stealing, not a problem with gambling, he had a problem with his girlfriend, which he sought to solve by stabbing her 11 times.
So let me ask you, what would you have done in regards to his punishment for his crimes?

ps I understand your position on the death penalty, but I don't agree with it.

"Well clearly "we" don't, but I do. And why? Because I do not believe in killing. I morally object to killing people, even people who kill. I truly believe in the sanctity of life, all life."

So you wouldn't want to have someone executed because you think it's more humane to have them stay and rot in prison slowly mentally degrading for the rest of their life? How humane is that?
edit on 20-7-2012 by WalterKovacs because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-7-2012 by WalterKovacs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by WalterKovacs
 


Well in this topic his first crime is irrelevant. He's not being executed for his first crime.

His killing is horrendous, but killing him isn't going to bring anybody back. He can be kept from killing other people by separating him from the general population. I've said this numerous times and you either conveniently ignore it or never saw it to begin with.

What would I have done in regards to punishment? Simple. His first crime, life imprisonment with no possibility of parole. His second killing of the inmate, solitary confinement/separation from the general population.

I'm not asking you to agree with my position on the death penalty, just like I don't think you are asking me to agree with yours.



So you wouldn't want to have someone executed because you think it's more humane to have them stay and rot in prison slowly mentally degrading for the rest of their life? How humane is that?


Yes, I think keeping someone alive IS more humane than killing them. I don't know how people can perform mental gymnastics to try and prove it is humane to kill a prisoner for a crime. But that's exactly what death penalty proponents do all the time. I've had numerous people, not just you, on this thread try this same exact argument.

And I disagree tha tthey are being "slowly mentally degraded." Again the solitary confinement can easily be reformed. They can do it just like the do people on death row. They are separated from the general population. They can be in a cell by themselves but still in another wing with other prisoners just like on death row.

See there are ways around this. It's only people who lack imagination and creativity who argue that the answer is "Kill them!" Take some time and think about it and you can come up with alternatives. It's not that hard.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
If he's going to go around beating people to death, what's the point to keeping him alive? He's not contributing to anything, but worse yet, he's going to cost something very dear...

More lives.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by crawdad1914

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
Many peoples logic says if he killed an inmate he deserves to die.
But what really goes on in prison ?
Any animal will defend it self when cornered, how long does one have to suffer abuse till they defend themselves ?

Cooler love the t-shirt.
edit on 19-7-2012 by OLD HIPPY DUDE because: (no reason given)


That is a good point that needs to be highlited. Considering this mans mental capacity, it is likely he has suffered much abuse from fellow inmates.

Anyone who has done any study on the prison system , is well aware of the abuses that are allowed to go on inside the walls.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around why this man was even in, general population.


I realize this is ATS so this is what we do, over-analyse, but as long as it's Georgia's law that is being followed, I think that is all we can take from this.

I feel the death penalty is crude and beneath us as a enlightened society, but obviously we are just not as enlightened as we'd like to believe. After all, we still go to war, and that to me is the antithesis of enlightenment.

Realistically to me, murderers, (the kind that have no remorse or understandable reason for the killing) gave up the right to life with their actions and also are just a burden to the already overcrowded prison system. And locking dangerous individual in solitary confinement for a lifetime would seem to be more cruel than death.

there will be mistakes, but again until we are all truly enlightened, this is what we are working with.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by CoolerAbdullah786
 


Sad, but not surprising unfortunately. It will be children who are executed next.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
So what if he's mentally retarded? He is guilty of killing 2 people. I think prisons should kill more people. Get the point across, stop taking it easy on people.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoolerAbdullah786

Originally posted by GrimReaper86

I see it more as a means of prevention. Now that retarded homicidal bastard can't hurt anyone anymore and we won't have to worry about taking care of him with our tax money anymore.


1. It doesn't prevent killing. People already know there is a death penalty and yet they still commit murders
2. They can be prevented by separating the prisoner from the general population. As I talked about before, there should be some solitary confinement option.
3. If you are going to argue fiscally it costs more to execute someone than it does to imprison them.

I've addressed these three points numerous times before in this thread. No offense but I really wish people would read through the comments. That would cut back on people having to repeat themselves.



In fact the fact that he's retarded seems like more justification to kill him if you ask me because he's not exactly a productive member of society even if he isn't a murderer


Wow. Really?
That really sounds like you are arguing for killing all mentally challenged people.


I tend to think that if you an prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone murdered someone else (excluding extenuating circumstances) then we ought to not have to pay to take care of them.


1. How do you know it was beyond a reasonable doubt? Because a jury convicted him? Juries convict innocent poeple all the time
2. Another thing I've addressed before, we don't get to decide where our taxes go. I don't want mine going to prisons and wars but I don't get to make that choice. Neither do you. Even if they kill this guy you are still footing the bill for every other prisoner. Whats the difference in one more? The number of prisoners in your state doesn't affect how much of your taxes is taken out for prisons.


In fact if the murdering bastards can't make enough money through labor or something to pay for their own life sentence, then they should be put to death via a roman style pay per view event where they have to fight each other like gladiators so that could generate money while simultaneously eliminating the murdering populace.Of course most people probably wouldn't agree with this concept and would probably even call me a monster, I just think it makes sense.


Yeah. I would agree. You do sound like a monster. You sound no different than the people in prison. You talk about eliminating the murdering populace but you sound quite bloodthirsty yourself.


You misunderstand, when I say it's a means of prevention I don't mean that it prevents people who haven't murdered anyone from wanting to murder someone, I mean it prevents anyone who has already murdered someone from murdering anyone else because you can't murder someone if you're dead. For instance if he had been executed after his first victim then he would not have been able to kill the second victim because he'd be dead.....TA DA!....and if imprisoning him made a difference and made him think twice about his actions then why did he kill someone else? Either imprisoning him didn't send a clear message or he just didn't understand the message because he's retarded. I suppose solitary confinement is the best option if you really don't want to kill them but then again I still don't see how that isn't extremely expensive compared to just executing them.

Also please, explain how keeping someone alive for the duration of their life is more expensive then just killing them. I'd love to hear anyone explain that. The cost of housing them, feeding them, and paying other people to watch them is somehow less expensive then just executing them.....I don't even understand how executing them could cost that much by comparison.

Addressing the beyond a reasonable doubt issue, I mean when evidence is pretty much irrefutable. Cases where there is clear DNA evidence, photoes, video, or maybe in cases where there are SEVERAL eye witnesses. In addition the general populace does have a say on where there taxes go. They aren't the final decision makers but they do vote representatives into office who can make such changes on their behalf. Does that mean those representatives will do what they are supposed to and vote the way the people want them to vote? No, but that's how it is supposed to work.

Btw, I'm not arguing to kill all mentally handicapped individuals even though their is historic presidence for such a thought, like the Spartans. However, retarded individuals with a natural tendency towards extreme violence could be executed and I wouldn't be bothered by that at all, especially if they are mentally handicapped to the point that they can't take care of themselves and require constant attention. Not only would eliminating these handicapped individuals eliminate the threat but it would also eliminate the defective genes from being passed on.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by GrimReaper86
 


Also you can call me a monster all you want, I don't care. In fact I probably think about killing people at least once a day, but you know what the biggest difference is. I don't. I don't kill people for fear of execution or imprisonment because I'm not retarded and I'm capable thought beyond action. Crazy concept huh?



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
Ok first I am against the death penalty...why should these killers, murderers, peds..all get off easy..they should suffer until the day they die...by making their last living days hell.

What makes those people asking for anther's death any better than the so-called scum of society. Thoughts and wishes of another s death make you just as sadistic as these morons.

So all you "good" people can suck it...with your idiocy.


I give you a star because I agree 100%

let's also throw all those christians in this as well... if they believe God is behind some killing they will hold to it like it's the gospel. Executing is an old world thing as well as religion. I guess some things die hard.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by GrimReaper86
 


Most of us aren't like that, and for those that are, they need some counseling. And extra help. We don't need to murder those who need help and healing, (with societies protection often, ie imprisonment) in order for some to walk the straight and narrow. So you need sacrifices and others death to strive to be good? Years in rehabilitation and with the kind of counseling that should be, but often isn't there, isn't enough of a deterrent? Most its not fear of prison that prevents them from murder, but that would be enough for many.

Of course there are people in extreme circumstance, grief, or due to mental handicaps, that don't have the same ability to be deterred at all, its spur of the moment, and they cant control themselves, and they're not as culpable. So fear of prison or death wouldn't reduce those cases, often someone like this, or perhaps youths, in gangs, old enough to harm, but not mature to really grasp consequence.

For them, they don't think and don't have this fear over them, its more a break down or rashness.

But for someone who can think it through I'm surprised one needs someone's constant death to keep them on the straight and narrow.
edit on 20-7-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 11:11 PM
link   
The whole deterrent argument like permanent hell is promoted though it bears false testimony against the Love and Goodness of Family above and in infinity, all souls are bound to make it out the other side aren't they? And permanent hell is a later addition to the Church, quite a few centuries later by the way.

The deterrent argument is lame.

1. Most people don't kill others, not out of fear of prison, but they just don't have it in them and they feel bad when they hurt someone's feelings. At least in my country.

2. If you needed a deterrent for some reason, fear of prison is adequate for most.

Now where alot of senseless murders take place, is with youths too rash to think things through or understand consequence, and like this guy, mentally handicapped, with the mentality of possibly a 10 year old or less, and thus not understanding consquence.

For some, like this no deterrent actually works, they just need a lot more help in their lives, and if bad things occur, a lot of help afterwards, and occasionally society needs to be kept safe.



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Not if he's kept separate from the general population. Again there are solutions that do not require bloodshed. We just have to be willing to use our imagination to come up with them.



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by SunnyDee

I realize this is ATS so this is what we do, over-analyse, but as long as it's Georgia's law that is being followed, I think that is all we can take from this.


No, we need to fight to change the laws. We can't just throw up our hands and go, "Well, it's Georgia law." That's apathy. I'm not a big fan of apathy.



I feel the death penalty is crude and beneath us as a enlightened society, but obviously we are just not as enlightened as we'd like to believe. After all, we still go to war, and that to me is the antithesis of enlightenment.


Then why not fight to raise awareness and enlightenment?


Realistically to me, murderers, (the kind that have no remorse or understandable reason for the killing) gave up the right to life with their actions and also are just a burden to the already overcrowded prison system.


Well overcrowded prison population is the problem, we shouldn't be killing people to ease that burden. For one, not that many people are executed to even put a dent in the problem of overcrowded prisons. For two those on death row are in a separate wing so they aren't even in with the general population which is the overcrowded section. So they actually have no bearing on that problem.


And locking dangerous individual in solitary confinement for a lifetime would seem to be more cruel than death.


Which is why I say we need some reform on solitary confinement. I mean look at it this way: Prisoners on death row are separated from the general population. They are in their own wing where they are in a cell alone but those cells are still all together. If we get rid of the death penalty then the Death Row wing can be the "solitary wing." It won't be like normal solitary confinement which is used as a cool off period where they are completely isolated from everyone 100%. They would just be separated from the general population and from sharing a cell with anyone. They'd still have "interaction" with the other inmates. They'd be able to obviously talk to them.

See? Creative solutions.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join