BuffettNews.com

rednekkPH wrote:I'm a strong advocate of the death penalty. However, it's not because I think it's a deterrent or that it brings "closure" to those affected by the crime. I'm an advocate of the death penalty because I feel that by committing certain heinous crimes, the perpetrator simply forfeits his or her right to exist.

That's pretty much how I view it as well however I also feel that for some heinous crimes the could be a deterrent if the execution were televised.

The justice system shouldn't be concerned with closure for the families...

Key Lime Lee wrote:The justice system shouldn't be concerned with closure for the families...

With certain states allowing for victims families to testify in the sentenacing phase of the trial and to view the exections that clearly indicates that the victims families and feelings are considered. I believe it falls under the category of victims rights.

ph4ever wrote:You're using one instance as an arguement for your point.

I actually have plenty more examples to use for my positioning, but I'm not interested in debating the topic. I feel simply that the wrongful execution of one, single, solitary person over our country's entire coarse of existence eliminates it's usefulness/credibility entirely. And I don't believe executions bring closure or actual justice to families of victims. It's just that simple for me. Not trying to argue a point... that's just how I feel.

IT ISNT ABOUT CLOSURE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT FOR ME.I SIMPLY FEEL THAT SOMEONE WHO HAS COMMITED SOMETHING LIKE PETERSON SHOULD NOT BE AROUND ANYMORE.IT'S THAT SIMPLE

Key Lime Lee wrote:The justice system shouldn't be concerned with closure for the families...

I agree with that, however, I am not so sure there is any other way to rationalize the death penalty. Maybe the execution decision should be in the hands of the victim's family? Then if it provides them closure, so be it, but if it doesn't, is it right? Seems to me spending the rest of his life in a remote tundra making gravel or license plates with no TV, weight rooms, or anything else to distract the mind from the deed that put him there is true punishmment as far as we know. What punishment happens after death isn't determinable by any of us at this point.

tommcat327 wrote:IT ISNT ABOUT CLOSURE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT FOR ME.I SIMPLY FEEL THAT SOMEONE WHO HAS COMMITED SOMETHING LIKE PETERSON SHOULD NOT BE AROUND ANYMORE.IT'S THAT SIMPLE

I actually agree with you Tcatt.............you are still an idiot though

Hockey(less)ParrotHead wrote:

Key Lime Lee wrote:The justice system shouldn't be concerned with closure for the families...

I agree with that, however, I am not so sure there is any other way to rationalize the death penalty.

how about that person will never ever commit another crime?

years ago, before NY state re-instituted the death penalty, an inmate serving a life sentence for murder took a female guard hostage and killed her during the stand off. his comment was "what are you going to do to me, give me another life sentence?"

AlbatrossFlyer wrote: how about that person will never ever commit another crime?

True, of course I would never condone letting a murderer out of prison. Leave him in the tundra compound the rest of his life.

Just think, if he is in San Quentin he has a view of where he dumped his wife and unborn son to look at and remind him the rest of his life.

why don't prisoners have to grow their own food anymore ? Why should I sustain a life of an inmate ?