Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Court ruling may put executions on indefinite hold

posted at 2:30 pm on October 3, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | regular view

This story touches on quite a few perennial themes: Crime and punishment, overlawyering, immigration. I suppose we’ll start with the first of those. Here’s the crime.

In 2001, Armand Paliotta was working at the K&G Men’s Superstore in southwest Arlington. Chi had worked at the store as an assistant tailor, but had been fired, former employees said.

The young man stopped by the store twice on March 24, according to court documents. During his first visit, he chatted with some of the employees, stayed about 30 minutes, then left.

He returned as Paliotta and two other employees were ready to leave for the night. Chi told them that he was missing his wallet, which he might have left in the store when he had stopped by earlier, said Adrian Riojas, who had started working at the store seven months earlier.

Paliotta let him inside to look.

Chi went to the back of the store, then returned and asked whether he could stay to search for it, Riojas said. Paliotta he would have to come back the next day, Riojas said.

Chi then pulled out a handgun and told the employees to get back inside the store, Riojas said. As the three employees tried to escape, running in different directions, Chi shot Paliotta in the back. Then he found Riojas in the storeroom and shot him.

Chi couldn’t find the third employee, a woman, and left in a getaway car driven by Hugo Alejandro Sierra, who is serving a life sentence for his role in the killing.

At first, Riojas said he felt hot. He pulled off his blood-covered jacket and thought, “I don’t feel anything, how could I be shot?” He took off his shirt, touched the bullet wound and then ran to the phone to call 911. An operator was on the line; the female employee had already dialed.

Chi is Heliberto Chi, a Honduran national who after attempting to commit triple murder is alive and well and seeking pen pals from death row. Through his lawyer, he’s also attempting to prove that lethal injection amounts to cruel and unusual punishment, and it’s this argument that may put all US executions on indefinite hold.

Signaling an indefinite halt to executions in Texas, the state’s highest criminal appeals court late Tuesday stayed the lethal injection of a 28-year-old Honduran man who was scheduled to be put to death Wednesday…

Acting less than a week after it rejected another inmate’s appeal 5 to 4, the appeals court justices provided no breakdown of the vote and did not give any reasoning for their decision. But they directed the state’s director of criminal justice, Nathaniel Quarterman, not to execute Mr. Chi and gave Mr. Quarterman and Tim Curry, the district attorney of Tarrant County, where the crime had been committed, up to 30 days to respond to claims by Mr. Chi’s lawyers that the formulation and administration of chemicals used for lethal injections did not quickly and painlessly kill but paralyzed the condemned inmates while they painfully suffocated.

Mr. Chi didn’t take Mr. Paliotta’s suffering into consideration. Or perhaps he did and factored it into his plan. The murder was premeditated and stemmed from Chi’s firing.

Lost in all of this is the fact that Chi isn’t a US citizen, has been convicted of violent crime, and is therefore deportable. Predictably, Honduras evidently doesn’t want Chi, but it does want him kept alive.

AUSTIN — The Honduran citizen who is set to die Wednesday for killing an Arlington store manager should be spared from execution until the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether lethal injection inflicts undue suffering, Honduras’ ambassador said Friday.

Ambassador Roberto Flores visited Austin on behalf of Heliberto Chi a day after the high court halted the execution of Carlton Turner Jr. Turner’s attorneys argued that he shouldn’t be put to death before the high court rules on lethal injections.

Flores said it makes no sense to spare one inmate but not another.

“This execution should be stopped,” he said. “We are requesting justice for Honduras and mercy for Mr. Chi.”

Mercy for Chi’s victims is not on the agenda.

Beyond all of this, are the implications of Chi invoking international law to get his execution stayed.

The Honduran Counsel General recorded an interview with Chi on death row.

“When I was extradited to the city of Fort Worth, Texas, I was asking if I could communicate,” Chi said.

Houston attorney Terry O’Rourke has been hired by the Honduran government to make a last-minute appeal.

“They should have called the consulate in California and said we got your guy. We’re going to extradite him to Texas. The consulate could have made a decision there,” O’Rourke said.

Honduran officials are flying into Houston Thursday night to meet with O’Rourke.

On Friday, they will go to Austin for meetings with the governor’s staff and the board of pardons and paroles.

What they’re asking for is simple.

“Just don’t kill him in violation of international law. That’s all,” O’Rourke said.

Predictably, there are vigils for Chi promoted alongside “Islam 101″ classes on the local liberal online watering hole. And I’d say that, predictably, Texas will have to come up with a new formula for its lethal injections. And just as predictably, the US taxpayer gets to foot the bill for incarcerating a man who by all rights ought to be in another country’s jails. If Honduras wants Chi alive, they ought to accept him back and keep him in jail on their own dime for the rest of his life.

All in all, the case of Heliberto Chi is a frustrating one.


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages:

The process of the lethal injection is pretty gruesome for a government inflicted punishment, but that aside I don’t like the idea of our government killing people. However, the only way to put an end to the death penalty will be through the “cruel and unusual punishment” avenue.

Nonfactor on October 3, 2007 at 2:35 PM

Paging Dr. Kevorkian, paging Dr. Kevorkian….

James on October 3, 2007 at 2:37 PM

Wouldn’t cruel and unusual punishment require the subjected person to say “Hey! That lethal injection you gave me was cruel and unusual!”?

If Honduras wants Chi alive, they ought to accept him back and keep him in jail on their own dime for the rest of his life.

You know that he would only be in an Honduran jail for a short time, released, and pointed in the correct direction of our southern border.

mojowire on October 3, 2007 at 2:39 PM

The process of the lethal injection is pretty gruesome for a government inflicted punishment, but that aside I don’t like the idea of our government killing people. However, the only way to put an end to the death penalty will be through the “cruel and unusual punishment” avenue.

Nonfactor on October 3, 2007 at 2:35 PM

Firing squad. Quick. Simple. Effective.

eanax on October 3, 2007 at 2:40 PM

Paging Dr. Kevorkian, paging Dr. Kevorkian….

James on October 3, 2007 at 2:37 PM

To even pretend those are the same for the sake of argument is disingenuous.

Nonfactor on October 3, 2007 at 2:40 PM

I think he should be put to death in the same manner as he took Armand Paliotta’s life. One bullet. Quick and painless. Done. End of story. One more piece of human trash eliminated from the planet.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 3, 2007 at 2:41 PM

Firing squad is fine. Faster and cheaper too.

darwin on October 3, 2007 at 2:42 PM

…the only way to put an end to the death penalty will be through the “cruel and unusual punishment” avenue.

Nonfactor on October 3, 2007 at 2:35 PM

And a Firing Squad wouldn’t fall under “cruel and unusual punishment” either.

eanax on October 3, 2007 at 2:44 PM

I stand corrected………

Why don’t we use this opportunity to explore how other cultures and faiths approach this issue. Oh, I know. Since this is Ramadan…………Anyone got a simitar handy? My blade is dull.

If it it was good for Zarqawi with Nick Berg, it is good enough for Chi.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 3, 2007 at 2:44 PM

eanax on October 3, 2007 at 2:44 PM

Shooting at a human being with an intent to kill isn’t cruel? And you’re okay with the government doing this?

Nonfactor on October 3, 2007 at 2:45 PM

The process of the lethal injection is pretty gruesome for a government inflicted punishment, but that aside I don’t like the idea of our government killing people. However, the only way to put an end to the death penalty will be through the “cruel and unusual punishment” avenue.

Nonfactor on October 3, 2007 at 2:35 PM

does anybody here feel the Gov is randomly picking people to torture? These convicts are guilty of cruel and unusual punishment on theior former victims.I wonder what non-factor would think if his/her young dughter was tortured and buried alive like young Jessica from florida! I have no doubt that non-factor would campign to save the murderer! And that is sad for the truley innocent!

Bearhopi on October 3, 2007 at 2:47 PM

How about execution by forcing him to listen to the Hillary and Mathews laugh until he takes his own life?

I am pretty sure they will be begging for the lethal injection after that .

Mojack420 on October 3, 2007 at 2:47 PM

shoot him in the back and let him bleed to death. And eye for an eye.

ctmom on October 3, 2007 at 2:48 PM

eanax beat me to it.
Since a lot of murderers seem to think death by gun shot is a pretty painless way to die, maybe we should look into it.

ChrisM on October 3, 2007 at 2:49 PM

“Cruel and unusual” is supposed to mean “completely painless and comfortable” now?

I guess I should sue my dentist. Or maybe the Drill Sergeant who made me do pushups till my arms hurt.

Hollowpoint on October 3, 2007 at 2:50 PM

Fry the bastard. I’ll pitch in a little extra on the electric bill this month.

infidel4life on October 3, 2007 at 2:53 PM

And you’re okay with the government doing this?

Yeah, if they don’t want to use the needle. I’m pretty much tit for tat anyway. Had he burned them to death, then fry him in a pan.

Sue on October 3, 2007 at 2:53 PM

Guillotine (sp)
Very quick.
Very effective.

RobG on October 3, 2007 at 2:56 PM

Shooting at a human being with an intent to kill isn’t cruel? And you’re okay with the government doing this?

Nonfactor on October 3, 2007 at 2:45 PM

It’s not so much “shooting with intent to kill”, really. It’s more like justice. We have laws for a reason. The ultimate price should be an effective deterrent for such a heinous crime as this. Chi knew the consequences before he even stepped into that store. He did the crime, now let him face the punishment.

Besides, I see it as genetics in action. Nothing gives me more pleasure than seeing selective reduction in undesirable traits. I’m not being Mahmoud on this one. We eliminate the heinous criminals for a reason……so that they DON’T DO IT AGAIN! Any child molesters around? Let’s make it a two-fer!

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 3, 2007 at 2:56 PM

Shooting at a human being with an intent to kill isn’t cruel? And you’re okay with the government doing this?

Nonfactor on October 3, 2007 at 2:45 PM

More than OK with this. He new what the possible punishment would be when he pulled the trigger.

As a matter of fact, I’m ok with public hangings. People need to see what will happen to them if they take another human’s life. Just reading about it doesn’t sink in.

PappaMac on October 3, 2007 at 2:59 PM

Shooting at a human being with an intent to kill isn’t cruel? And you’re okay with the government doing this?

Nonfactor on October 3, 2007 at 2:45 PM

What you would rather it be done by private citizens? Like with torches and pitch forks?

Anyway, if hanging was the common form of capital punishment when the constitution was written, ummm this isn’t cruel or unusual at all. They meant like being drawn and quartered, tarred and feathered, a corn cob . . well you get the picture. It was to end medieval type punishments like the rack and iron maiden. (air guitar).

- The Cat

MirCat on October 3, 2007 at 3:00 PM

So how is making someone spend the rest of their life in jail not cruel? If they need better drugs, go for it, but the idea that we can’t find an effective anesthetic is pretty preposterous.

pedestrian on October 3, 2007 at 3:00 PM

Shooting at a human being with an intent to kill isn’t cruel? And you’re okay with the government doing this?

Nonfactor on October 3, 2007 at 2:45 PM

Our troops do it every day to our foreign enemies; why should domestic murderers be treated any better?

Multiple 7.62 rounds to the heart or brain and they aren’t going to be suffering all too long.

You’re opposed to the death penalty- fine. Just tell us what method of execution wouldn’t be “cruel and unusual” in your view.

Hollowpoint on October 3, 2007 at 3:02 PM

I wonder what non-factor would think if his/her young dughter was tortured and buried alive like young Jessica from florida!

Bearhopi on October 3, 2007 at 2:47 PM

An obvious fallacy that is eventually used in all of these debates, but never have I seen someone misspell “daughter” when attempting to appeal to someone’s emotions.

It’s more like justice.

Justice? Killing a human being because they killed a human being is justice? Really? Hammurabi much?

Besides, I see it as genetics in action.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 3, 2007 at 2:56 PM

I agree. Lets kill all the undesirables so we can live in a perfect community with no crime!

Nonfactor on October 3, 2007 at 3:03 PM

If he was man enough to do the crime he’s man enough to take the punishment. Don’t get scared now Chi.

coldshot on October 3, 2007 at 3:03 PM

Any child molesters around? Let’s make it a two-fer!
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 3, 2007 at 2:56 PM

that would take to long and cost to much just put the child molesters back on the main line in the general population . Problem solved and you can bank on that .

Mojack420 on October 3, 2007 at 3:06 PM

What you would rather it be done by private citizens?

Fallacy. And especially stupid when you know you’re using a fallacy too. I’d rather it not be done.

Anyway, if hanging was the common form of capital punishment when the constitution was written

MirCat on October 3, 2007 at 3:00 PM

And slavery was common when the Constitution was written too.

So how is making someone spend the rest of their life in jail not cruel?

pedestrian on October 3, 2007 at 3:00 PM

If you honestly can’t see the difference in killing someone or locking them up for a violation of the law there is no point in even talking with you.

Nonfactor on October 3, 2007 at 3:07 PM

Drug induced coma and then pull the feeding tube. I hear that that is painless and even considered merciful by some.

rw on October 3, 2007 at 3:09 PM

Drug induced coma and then pull the feeding tube. I hear that that is painless and even considered merciful by some.

rw on October 3, 2007 at 3:09 PM

Merciful? “Some say” it is downright euphoric!

Brat on October 3, 2007 at 3:15 PM

I feel that those persons convicted of murder and placed on death row should be put to death in the same manner as their victim. I also feel they should not be given an exact time, allowed to kiss their family goodbye, allowed to meet a minister, or in any way be treated to any privileges that were not afforded to their victim.
But that is just me.

LakeRuins on October 3, 2007 at 3:18 PM

Justice and vengeance are the flip side of the same coin. With criminal justice being revised over time, the odds of the coin turning up vengeance is deminished greatly. Justice being what society says it is, we continue to wrestle with the morality or immorality of a life for a life. Motivation, and egregiousness is factored in. Should the victims, after say a year of mourning, decide the fate of the perpetrator, within the framework of existing law?

captivated_dem on October 3, 2007 at 3:21 PM

Paging Dr. Kevorkian, paging Dr. Kevorkian….

James on October 3, 2007 at 2:37 PM
To even pretend those are the same for the sake of argument is disingenuous.

Nonfactor on October 3, 2007 at 2:40 PM

There is no duplicity here…his method is universally understood to be entirely painless. After all, it WAS the method of choice of plenty of volunteers.

That you see an insurmountable wall between this and lethal injection based merely on motivation speaks volumes about who is being disingenuous.

James on October 3, 2007 at 3:23 PM

Justice? Killing a human being because they killed a human being is justice? Really? Hammurabi much?

Truth be told, I don’t Hammurabi much at all. Why is he any more relevant than Moses (through whom we get “eye for an eye”)?

Bigfoot on October 3, 2007 at 3:24 PM

It was to end medieval type punishments like the rack and iron maiden.(air guitar).
MirCat on October 3, 2007 at 3:00 PM

This is what immediately came to mind

allie on October 3, 2007 at 3:24 PM

Using the courts to legislate, what the left can’t get through the doctrine of ‘living document’ they will get by invoking the moral authority of foreign (comparative) and international (UN) law.

They zealously guard the UN because it’s their back door to domestic control.

petefrt on October 3, 2007 at 3:25 PM

If you honestly can’t see the difference in killing someone or locking them up for a violation of the law there is no point in even talking with you.

Nonfactor on October 3, 2007 at 3:07 PM

Oh, I see. You would rather it be a long slow death. Solitary Confinement. Let him talk to the walls. Gotcha

PappaMac on October 3, 2007 at 3:25 PM

Shooting at a human being with an intent to kill isn’t cruel?

Nope. Let’s take the situation out of the death penalty realm for a moment. Let’s say someone has entered your home with who knows what intentions and has a weapon. Do negotiate with this criminal, like Neville Chamberlain did with Hitler, or do you take appropriate action to defend yourself, your family and your property?

And back to the Death Penalty: I have zero problems with this form of punishment after a person has been convicted by a jury in a court of law and has had an opportunity to appeal the verdict.

And you’re okay with the government doing this?

Nonfactor on October 3, 2007 at 2:45 PM

Absolutely. I believe in the Death Penalty.

eanax on October 3, 2007 at 3:27 PM

Oh, I see. You would rather it be a long slow death. Solitary Confinement. Let him talk to the walls. Gotcha

PappaMac on October 3, 2007 at 3:25 PM

And wasting MORE tax payer dollars…

eanax on October 3, 2007 at 3:28 PM

nonfactor=clueless

SIJ6141 on October 3, 2007 at 3:28 PM

It was to end medieval type punishments like the rack and iron maiden.(air guitar).
MirCat on October 3, 2007 at 3:00 PM

And in the Founders day, being drawn and quartered or tarred and feathered…

eanax on October 3, 2007 at 3:29 PM

Nonfactor,

Are you pro-choice?

Sue on October 3, 2007 at 3:31 PM

And wasting MORE tax payer dollars…

eanax on October 3, 2007 at 3:28 PM

Putting someone on Death Row actually costs the taxpayers more.

Nonfactor on October 3, 2007 at 3:32 PM

Nonfactor seems to be making all the good points, but I’ll throw in the usual:

If you believe the government should have the power to executive its citizens, you’re not conservative.

Anyone remember “limited government?”

Enrique on October 3, 2007 at 3:35 PM

Ok, injection is out…

Fine by me, time to start hanging and using firing squads again (as those were the ways it was done back then). If modern methods are “unusual” vs the old ways, let’s get back to the old ways.

Voidseeker on October 3, 2007 at 3:35 PM

Putting someone on Death Row actually costs the taxpayers more.

Nonfactor on October 3, 2007 at 3:32 PM

EXACTLY. It’s costs too much, it’s not a deterent, and it’s too much power for the government to have. All sensible conservatives should be opposed to the death penalty.

Not that I know anything about being sensible, just sayin’…

Enrique on October 3, 2007 at 3:37 PM

Anyone remember “limited government?”

What a bogus argument. You can argue that conservatives believe the federal government should stay out of the business of executing citizens, but not states.

Sue on October 3, 2007 at 3:40 PM

Nonfactor seems to be making all the good points, but I’ll throw in the usual:

If you believe the government should have the power to executive its citizens, you’re not conservative.

Anyone remember “limited government?”

Enrique on October 3, 2007 at 3:35 PM

And anyone that thinks the people do not have the right to decide its laws and the punishments for breaking those laws is not a Conservative.

The Death PENALTY is exactly that. PUNISHMENT. It is what one earns when one decides to break set laws that were written by the leaders selected by the people. It was not handed down by decree from a King or Dictator. Nor is it used on a whim by any branch of the government for just any old reason. A person has to earn it by their own actions.

People that choose to ignore the above are just dishonest on this issue.

Voidseeker on October 3, 2007 at 3:44 PM

Putting someone on Death Row actually costs the taxpayers more.

Nonfactor on October 3, 2007 at 3:32 PM

Because of the lengthy and seemingly endless appeals. That’s why.

eanax on October 3, 2007 at 3:47 PM

Putting someone on Death Row actually costs the taxpayers more.

Nonfactor on October 3, 2007 at 3:32 PM

Not once the bogus appeals are over.

So what is the atheistic opposition to death penalty? Apart from some supposed cost savings, what rational reason is there for the punishment not to fit the crime? If it is just that your conscious bothers you about it, how can you base government in non-rational feelings?

pedestrian on October 3, 2007 at 3:50 PM

Anyone remember “limited government?”

What a bogus argument. You can argue that conservatives believe the federal government should stay out of the business of executing citizens, but not states.

Sue on October 3, 2007 at 3:40 PM

Exactly. The vast majority of death penalty cases are handled by the STATES and not the Feds. In fact, that is where the majority of criminal is practiced — at the State level.

eanax on October 3, 2007 at 3:50 PM

I don’t like death penalty because it isn’t used enough. It’s just not an effective deterrent. It’s such a waste of time and money to execute someone for crimes they committed 15 years ago that no one remembers.

It would be cheaper to create new courts, assign new judges to strictly try capital punishment cases, give the defendants no more than one year to appeal and get it over with.

I don’t care about the punishment angle, I care about the deterrent angle. I don’t even think prison is that much of a deterrent these days.

reaganaut on October 3, 2007 at 3:52 PM

I don’t like death penalty because it isn’t used enough. It’s just not an effective deterrent. It’s such a waste of time and money to execute someone for crimes they committed 15 years ago that no one remembers.

It would be cheaper to create new courts, assign new judges to strictly try capital punishment cases, give the defendants no more than one year to appeal and get it over with.

I don’t care about the punishment angle, I care about the deterrent angle. I don’t even think prison is that much of a deterrent these days.

reaganaut on October 3, 2007 at 3:52 PM

Not a bad idea. I personally don’t care if it’s a deterrent or not, these folks need to pay the price for their crimes.

Cost is a factor. Giving murderers Life in prison is a waste of taxpayer money — as are the endless appeals from death row.

eanax on October 3, 2007 at 3:56 PM

Justice? Killing a human being because they killed a human being is justice? Really? Hammurabi much?

Nonfactor on October 3, 2007 at 3:03 PM

And slavery was common when the Constitution was written too

If you honestly can’t see the difference in killing someone or locking them up for a violation of the law there is no point in even talking with you.

Nonfactor on October 3, 2007 at 3:07 PM

The above prove to me that you have zero understanding of personal responsibility and consequences for ones actions.

Slaves had zero choice to become such, and the Constitution did the best it could at the time to limit the influence slave holders had by only allowing them to count 3 out of 5 slaves for the purpose of deciding population/representation in the House. Later we fought a war and stated that Blacks were equal to whites and had all the same rights.

Criminals have a choice. They do not have to commit their crimes. They MAKE THE CHOICE to break the law. The punishment is EARNED. It is the direct result of their own illegal actions that they face the death penalty.

Or maybe I should just say:
If you honestly cannot see the difference between someone dying as a victim of a criminal act having no choice in the matter and meeting out an earned punishment to a criminal that chose to commit the criminal act there is no point in even talking to you.

Voidseeker on October 3, 2007 at 3:59 PM

Putting someone on Death Row actually costs the taxpayers more.
Nonfactor on October 3, 2007 at 3:32 PM

I have heard that one before but I have never seen any proof.
The problem is that the murderers are kept alive for years after they should have been executed, all the delays and appeals cost us (the taxpayers) a lot more than the actual execution. I have no proof of that either.

SIJ6141 on October 3, 2007 at 4:00 PM

The above prove to me that you have zero understanding of personal responsibility and consequences for ones actions.

Voidseeker on October 3, 2007 at 3:59 PM

You missed my point entirely. I wasn’t comparing slaves to criminals, I was showing that even the Constitution can be morally inept.

Nonfactor on October 3, 2007 at 4:06 PM

I have heard that one before but I have never seen any proof.

It costs a little bit more, because they usually have their own wing of the prison, maybe a lower inmate/guard ratio, less inmates per square foot. Not to mention the court time taken up on appeals.

I personally don’t care if it’s a deterrent or not, these folks need to pay the price for their crimes.

I do think they should pay the price as well, but for me personally, if someone killed a love one, I’d rather do it myself, not have the state take care of it.

I think it does give closure to the victims families’ as well. I’d be just as happy if they were sent off to hard labor and lived in a tiny box the rest of their lives, with no visitation, TV, books, weights, sports, etc. Like that would ever happen.

If thing get too liberal, or should I say even more liberal, in this country, and people aren’t satisfied with the way the criminal justice system works, you’ll see an increase in vigilante justice.

reaganaut on October 3, 2007 at 4:09 PM

I say we suspend all executions until Sharia Law makes it’s way to our courts and justice system. Messy but effective. Stoning, hanging, and beheading. The first to be sentenced will be those that oppose the laws of Islam, voicing their opposition to any sentence passed down.

As for Chi, it’s a pity one of the clerks wasn’t armed.

24K lady on October 3, 2007 at 4:11 PM

You missed my point entirely. I wasn’t comparing slaves to criminals, I was showing that even the Constitution can be morally inept.

Nonfactor on October 3, 2007 at 4:06 PM

No, I actually addressed that in my reply. The Constitution makes no claims on race, and was written by the Framers in the best way possible to limit the effect of the practice. They could not call for an end to the practice and have those states that were built on slavery sign on to the Constitution. But they could limit the power those same states would have and work on ending the practice over time.

The Constitution states “all men” (with men being a universal term for all humans). It does not say some men.

Your point is just plain wrong.

Voidseeker on October 3, 2007 at 4:15 PM

I agree. Lets kill all the undesirables so we can live in a perfect community with no crime!

Now, you are being silly. I would love to live in a perfect world where everyone respects the rule of law as well as their fellow man. But this is the real world. Bad people exist. There is nothing we can do to prevent bad things from happening. Communities impose laws (and punishments) not just to punish the guilty but hold up an agreed upon standard or code of conduct for living in the community. Simple things, really. You know, don’t kill people. Especially if you are pissed off because you got fired for being a bad employee.

A little history…

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Let’s focus on the incident. I believe everyone has free will. You can choose to work to the best of your ability and be an asset to the community, or you can choose to disregard the community and violate other people’s rights. Chi violated all of Armand Paliotta’s rights. He denied him the right to live. He infringed on Armand Paliotta’s liberty. Remember, in this country, our liberty states that you can do whatever you want as long as you do not harm anyone else. Finally, Armand Paliotta’s happiness ended in that store. His right to have a family, be loved and give love ended with a gunshot.

To secure our rights as citizens of this nationwide community, the government with our approval has been charged with prosecuting and punishing the offender. Chi has had his day in court. He has been found guilty. We as citizens have identified that horrendous acts of violence no longer merit those rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. When Chi squeezed the trigger, he forfeited his rights because he violated the rights of another. As such, the government, obtaining their power from us, has the duty and responsibility to enforce that punishment.

Notice I have not mentioned anything about lawyers and judges. Our system is designed such that if a citizen thinks a law or punishment for a crime is unfair, that citizen has the right and duty to petition the government to address that concern. But again where does government derive its power? From the people. Time and time again when brought before the people, the people has stated loudly that capital punishment is acceptable for these types of crimes.

If we do not enforce a community agreed upon standard of punishment, what is the sense of having a laws and a government?

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 3, 2007 at 4:22 PM

If lethal injection is too cruel, let’s bring back Old Sparky.

steveegg on October 3, 2007 at 4:23 PM

If you believe the government should have the power to executive its citizens, you’re not conservative.

Anyone remember “limited government?”

Enrique on October 3, 2007 at 3:35 PM

But a goverment that has the power to kidnap it’s citizens at gunpoint and confine them against their will in a cell for the rest of their life is “limited government”?

Hollowpoint on October 3, 2007 at 4:24 PM

If executions are outlawed, only outlaws will hold executions.

VerbumSap on October 3, 2007 at 4:30 PM

Paging Dr. Kevorkian, paging Dr. Kevorkian….

James on October 3, 2007 at 2:37 PM

Good point, supposedly he found a way that wasn’t cruel.

Esthier on October 3, 2007 at 4:34 PM

The problem is that the murderers are kept alive for years after they should have been executed, all the delays and appeals cost us (the taxpayers) a lot more than the actual execution. I have no proof of that either.

SIJ6141 on October 3, 2007 at 4:00 PM

That’s why it costs more, mostly the appeals.

Esthier on October 3, 2007 at 4:36 PM

hang him! I don’t care how you kill him, but do not allow him the opportunity to kill others in prison, escape and kill others while on the lam. These type guys consistently take more lives. It is mercy to eliminate him not just jail him.

apostle53 on October 3, 2007 at 4:39 PM

hang him! I don’t care how you kill him

apostle53 on October 3, 2007 at 4:39 PM

More evidence as to why the death penalty is borne out of a public and primitive lust for blood.

Nonfactor on October 3, 2007 at 5:39 PM

It’s not a lust for blood, it’s a desire for justice. This man should be permitted to appeal his conviction, but if his conviction is upheld, he should die. That won’t bring his victims back, that won’t deter every other potential killer, but this man needs to pay for his crime. I don’t want to see him tortured or humiliated, but he needs to forfeit his life if he is indeed guilty. To deny it is to deny the value of his victim’s lives.

Dork B. on October 3, 2007 at 6:14 PM

Life without parole is better than the death sentence for all but the most egregious of crimes. There is still room for error.
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/wireStory?id=3671842

links to a very bad case about the Chicago police that may end up proving an innocent person has been executed as the case develops. If that turns out to be true I’d expect that a very loud drum beat will begin to have the death penalty curbed drastically.

“Videotapes of angry officers savagely beating civilians and charges that a murder plot was hatched within an elite special operations unit have Chicago’s troubled police department reeling again.

Adding to the department’s woes is word from federal prosecutors that they are investigating claims that homicide detectives tortured suspects into confessing to murders that landed them on death row in the 1980s.”

Bradky on October 3, 2007 at 6:25 PM

It’s not a lust for blood, it’s a desire for justice.

Dork B. on October 3, 2007 at 6:14 PM

That’s all well and good to say, especially when you don’t define justice (and by looking at your post it seems you think justice = eye for an eye), but the bottom line is you want a human being to die, and if that isn’t a lust for blood I don’t know what is.

Nonfactor on October 3, 2007 at 6:30 PM

It would seem that many murderers, just like rapists and/or child molesters, are serial in behavior and seem never to think they will be caught or have to face judgement. With that mindset, the heinous(sp?) barbarity of their acts will continue if ever given the opportunity. During the commission of their crimes, do they imagine they’re smarter than the police or simply can outsmart a jury – and have shown no remorse for the suffering of the victim or their families. IMHO, there are some criminals that can never be rehabilitated nor set loose on society again.

24K lady on October 3, 2007 at 6:30 PM

IMHO, there are some criminals that can never be rehabilitated nor set loose on society again.

24K lady on October 3, 2007 at 6:30 PM

This isn’t a death penalty vs. releasing murderers into society debate it’s a death penalty vs. life in prison debate, and the fact of the matter is that our justice system is in no way perfect and innocent people do indeed get sent to jail.

Nonfactor on October 3, 2007 at 6:34 PM

I vote we clearout death row in every prison by hanging them all on the same day. Deterrent.

AZCON on October 3, 2007 at 6:46 PM

I say we stone him. How could the liberals protest that? It’s the same punishment the jihadists they love so much use.

Kowboy on October 3, 2007 at 6:53 PM

Kowboy on October 3, 2007 at 6:53 PM

lololololololololololol0olololoolololololololololololololol

Nonfactor on October 3, 2007 at 6:56 PM

lololololololololololol0olololoolololololololololololololol

Nonfactor on October 3, 2007 at 6:56 PM

Ah. The response of one with no argument.

Kowboy on October 3, 2007 at 6:59 PM

…but the bottom line is you want a human being to die, and if that isn’t a lust for blood I don’t know what is.

Nonfactor on October 3, 2007 at 6:30 PM

Yes, because there are consequences for actions.

eanax on October 3, 2007 at 7:10 PM

Nonfactor, now you are deciding what is to be discussed? You’ve completely missed my point and that is usually a hard to do. You’ve made every argument against the death penalty, insulted laws that have been either established by vote of the people or by legislation. Even the Constitution was ripe for disdain. No one has argued that there have been cases of false conviction resulting in years of incarceration. God willing those are found and decisions reversed. But, insulting other posters doesn’t make your case and you’ve failed to establish your thoughts on what to do with someone like Chi. Mr. Chi has been lawfully convicted by the Great State of Texas. The punishment required for his offense is death, and in his view cruel and unusual. Does he decide his fate or does the state? Every argument you’ve used has been the defamation and imperfection of our legal/justice system and how innocent people get sent to jail.

24K lady on October 3, 2007 at 7:16 PM

This isn’t a death penalty vs. releasing murderers into society debate it’s a death penalty vs. life in prison debate, and the fact of the matter is that our justice system is in no way perfect and innocent people do indeed get sent to jail.

Nonfactor on October 3, 2007 at 6:34 PM

And guilty people get away with murder. What’s your point? Perfection? This is an impossible standard to live up to.

Life in prison costs way too much. And the way the systems are run now, the possibility is great that the convicted murderer will get out early on parole or escape thus endangering society again.

eanax on October 3, 2007 at 7:16 PM

That’s all well and good to say, especially when you don’t define justice (and by looking at your post it seems you think justice = eye for an eye), but the bottom line is you want a human being to die, and if that isn’t a lust for blood I don’t know what is.

Nonfactor on October 3, 2007 at 6:30 PM

I thought I gave a good argument for justice. I define justice as the fair and judicial enforcement of civil laws -laws that are designed to protect the rights of the individual citizen as outlined in our founding documents. This includes inflicting punishment on the guilty as decided by the state – but only to the degree that the state represents the will of the governed.
In a broader sense, Justice is another word for fairness.

It’s not fair that this man is allowed to live but his victims are not. Capital Punishment also happens to be the law of the state of Texas and the will of her citizens. He knew that when he murdered his victim, and it did it anyway. In other words, it was premeditated, and not a crime of passion.

Blood lust would be for me to demand his instant execution without due process, in the most henieous form imaginable.
The eye for an eye reference is interesting, because it is a command to make the punishment appropriate to the crime committed. Which is the reason for my first comment where I said that he should pay with his life, because nothing he owns nor anything he could ever do will ever pay for what he has taken. He owes his life and more, if he is indeed guilty. I think his victim’s family would agree.

Dork B. on October 3, 2007 at 7:28 PM

eanax on October 3, 2007 at 7:16 PM

The point is when a human life is at stake to have an imperfect system decide the fate of that human life is cruel and unusual.

Nonfactor on October 3, 2007 at 7:31 PM

The point is when a human life is at stake to have an imperfect system decide the fate of that human life is cruel and unusual.

Nonfactor on October 3, 2007 at 7:31 PM

I’m betting you’re pro-choice.

Kowboy on October 3, 2007 at 7:37 PM

The point is when a human life is at stake to have an imperfect system decide the fate of that human life is cruel and unusual.

Nonfactor on October 3, 2007 at 7:31 PM

Not even close. This is your opinion passed along as something that wouldn’t even be remotely considered f-a-c-t.

Cruel and unusual are people who initiate force in the first place, and then don’t want to face the consequences of their actions.

eanax on October 3, 2007 at 7:40 PM

I’m betting you’re pro-choice.

Kowboy on October 3, 2007 at 7:37 PM

I asked earlier and didn’t get a response. But here’s an idea, in the event nonfactor is pro-choice. Instead of calling it an execution, we’ll call it a late term abortion.

Sue on October 3, 2007 at 7:41 PM

Sue on October 3, 2007 at 7:41 PM

I prefer the term “retroactive abortion” :-)

Kowboy on October 3, 2007 at 7:44 PM

I prefer the term “retroactive abortion” :-)

Kowboy on October 3, 2007 at 7:44 PM

That will work too. Just throw abortion in there and they will stop objecting.

Sue on October 3, 2007 at 7:48 PM

If after his death warrant were signed without notifying him an executioner put a bullet in his head while he slept would that be cruel and unusual?

Speakup on October 3, 2007 at 8:02 PM

I’ve always found it interesting that when an animal kills a human, it’s always hunted and destroyed. Why is that?
The argument that it’s done to prevent a violent animal from killing again is very good, but we could certainly prevent that without killing the animal – I mean, often these are animals who are already contained and controlled, at least until the offense occurs. We could simply enforce more intense controls – drugs, cages, trapping and relocating, etc. I know there is a cost factor there.
But the animal who kills does so because of instinct, and therefore is not responsible morally for the offence. It doesn’t know any better. Why kill a morally innocent animal if there were other alternatives?
We take such things into consideration when deciding murder/manslaughter cases: intent, frame of mind, level of sanity – even the age of the perpetrator. To determine the level of responsibilty. If a person is mentally retarded, or suffering from the side effects of medication, or is mentally ill, we weigh those factors when deciding guilt.
So why would we destory an animal that kills with absolutely no immoral intent and not execute a person who kills if there is reasonable doubt as to their mental state and intentions?
It has to be because the value of human life factors into the equation. It’s a factor in punishment for muderers as well.
But I won’t dismiss the idea of revenge either – there is an emotional element. But when is revenge ever justified more than when an innocent person is killed?

Dork B. on October 3, 2007 at 8:08 PM

If after his death warrant were signed without notifying him an executioner put a bullet in his head while he slept would that be cruel and unusual?

Speakup on October 3, 2007 at 8:02 PM

Maybe, if he put it there with needle-nose pliers, through the ear canal. Until death!

Dork B. on October 3, 2007 at 8:10 PM

…but the bottom line is you want a human being to die, and if that isn’t a lust for blood I don’t know what is.

Nonfactor on October 3, 2007 at 6:30 PM

Maybe some others on the thread want Chi to die. I don’t. I also didn’t want the store manager he shot to die. I didn’t want the US to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. I didn’t want my grandfather to serve in WWII and kill other men, probably men with wives and kids. This is the state of things in the world. I support executing Chi, just like I support necessary war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and anywhere evil must be combatted. In an imperfect world, the best decision is rarely perfect.
I’ll continue to work for a world without evil and pain, but until then, society cannot look upon evil acts like Chi’s with the least degree of tolerance.

sweetlipsbutterhoney on October 3, 2007 at 8:30 PM

Nonfactor refuses to accept one simple truth:

When a person chooses to commit a crime, that person agrees to the punishment for it. He/she is allowed to appear in court where the State is required to prove his/her guilt to a jury of peers beyond a shadow of doubt. If found guilty by the court system punishment is served.

Your argument that innocent people are sometimes found guilty does not invalidate the punishment earned, nor is it a reason to cease its imposition. It IS an argument for improving the court system that found the person guilty, but only in that the Jury of Peers was lacking in doubt.

It is extremely difficult to find someone guilty of a crime that warrants the Death Penalty, but when it is an open and shut case like this the penalty should be served ASAP.

Voidseeker on October 3, 2007 at 8:37 PM

Proving yet again why I’m against the death penalty; it’s not that it isn’t apt, it’s that the people tasked to carry it out are the same people tasked with delivering our mail…..

HerrMorgenholz on October 3, 2007 at 9:14 PM

Just take him out and shoot him, problem over.

xplodeit on October 4, 2007 at 12:31 AM

No Worries. Send him to Nebraska and we’ll just fire up “Old Sparky”. After all, we do have the lowest electric rates in the entire country here in the Cornhusker state…

serenity on October 4, 2007 at 10:24 AM

“Whiskey for my men, beer for my horses!”

Grandpappy told my pappy
Back in my day, son
A man had to answer
For the wicked thing he done
Take all the rope in Texas
Find a tall oak tree
Round up all of them bad boys
And hang ‘em high in the street
For all the people to see

coldshot on October 4, 2007 at 3:01 PM

Comment pages:


You must be logged in to post a comment.