Comments on: Court ruling may put executions on indefinite hold

By: coldshot

coldshot — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:01:14 +0000

“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

By: serenity

serenity — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 14:24:36 +0000

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…

By: xplodeit

xplodeit — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 04:31:51 +0000

Just take him out and shoot him, problem over.

By: HerrMorgenholz

HerrMorgenholz — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 01:14:56 +0000

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…..

By: Voidseeker

Voidseeker — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 00:37:46 +0000

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.

By: sweetlipsbutterhoney

sweetlipsbutterhoney — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 00:30:44 +0000

…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.

By: Dork B.

Dork B. — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 00:10:40 +0000

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!

By: Dork B.

Dork B. — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 00:08:13 +0000

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?

By: Speakup

Speakup — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 00:02:09 +0000

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?

By: Sue

Sue — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 23:48:06 +0000

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.

By: Kowboy

Kowboy — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 23:44:30 +0000

Sue on October 3, 2007 at 7:41 PM

I prefer the term “retroactive abortion” :-)

By: Sue

Sue — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 23:41:09 +0000

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.

By: eanax

eanax — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 23:40:47 +0000

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.

By: Kowboy

Kowboy — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 23:37:16 +0000

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.

By: Nonfactor

Nonfactor — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 23:31:01 +0000

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.

By: Dork B.

Dork B. — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 23:28:24 +0000

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.

By: eanax

eanax — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 23:16:54 +0000

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.

By: 24K lady

24K lady — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 23:16:51 +0000

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.

By: eanax

eanax — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 23:10:59 +0000

…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.

By: Kowboy

Kowboy — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 22:59:32 +0000

lololololololololololol0olololoolololololololololololololol

Nonfactor on October 3, 2007 at 6:56 PM

Ah. The response of one with no argument.

By: Nonfactor

Nonfactor — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 22:56:28 +0000

Kowboy on October 3, 2007 at 6:53 PM

lololololololololololol0olololoolololololololololololololol

By: Kowboy

Kowboy — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 22:53:23 +0000

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

By: AZCON

AZCON — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 22:46:33 +0000

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

By: Nonfactor

Nonfactor — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 22:34:39 +0000

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.

By: 24K lady

24K lady — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 22:30:55 +0000

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.