I used to be pro-death penalty 100 percent, until I read about Todd Willingham

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

You can state all the statistics you want, but neither this story, nor anything a person can say will change the fact that I am 100% in favor of the death penalty. I don’t feel sorry for Mr. Willingham. Nothing written here convinces me that he was innocent.

As far as the death penalty costing more, I feel this is nothing but radical bullshit. I can buy a nice sturdy 20ft piece of rope for less than $20 at my local hardware store, and there are plenty of tall trees growing out of the ground nature’s provided free of charge. What cost is the special housing they give these scum along with all the legal cost of providing them with representation, the cost of the trial and the cost of all the appeals these pansy asses cry out they deserve. That’s where our system is flawed. What happened to the good ole days when a criminal was brought in and presented to the justice of the peace immediately, or at least the following day, and their fate decided on there and then. To hell with all that appeal bullshit.

David Spears is a great example of this pansy ass complete waste of my tax dollars. His attorney recently filed objections to one of the aggravating circumstances that the prosecutor cited in his intent to seek the death penalty. Spears' lawyer argued that the circumstance of "wantonly vile, horrible, or inhuman" is unconstitutionally vague. Prosecutors argue the motion is a standard filing in every death penalty case. He killed little Rowan Ford in November 2007 and his trial isn’t scheduled until March of next year. This sorry ass piece of lard should be dead by now. He raped and killed this innocent young girl and threw her corpse down in a hole in the woods to let the wild animals eat what was left of her. Revenge would be torturing him the same. Justice would be hanging his fat ass in a tree so he’ll no longer be a burden on society.

Using my tax dollars to support this asshole is where the justice system is flawed. The death penalty without all the radical bullshit is what would repair this system.

Looks like we have a winner, here.

[runecire]

...why the DP isn't necessary or productive (it doesn't deter, it's more expensive, you can't correct mistakes once the person is dead, etc.) You must be basing the need for death penalty on emotion, because you can't counter any of those arguments. The best Ive heard is that "at least they wont be able to kill again if they are dead", which to me doesn't quite make the case, because the same result is achieved if we give them life without parole.

I counter with this simple observation. I keep reading this statement over and over and it brings a thought to my mind: Do people believe it doesn't deter because those who say so are the convicted criminals, or because law-abiding people in the general population say so? I for one have never relished the idea of sitting on death row until the day finally came for me to die. I wonder how many people have turned away from criminal plans because they cannot stomach the idea of facing the DP, but no one is going to come forward and say "I was going to murder someone, but the idea of the DP stopped me." The problem is, if the only ones being asked for an opinion on deterance are the very criminals who are sitting on death row, how is that in any way an unbiased and all inclusive report? How can we accept this statement as a fact if the ones who are detered are not speaking up? I would really like to know the sources of these so-called "studies on deterance" and the orientation of the case groups they studied. I would also like to see a study (studies) on the numbers of serious crimes per capita in states that have DP compared to those states that don't. I personally do not have the time to sit at the computor long enough to dredge it all up, so if any else does, please do so. Thanks.

It is more expensive because we allow them to appeal for so many years and burn up tax dollars, even when there isn't even a shadow of a doubt they are guilty. We allow them to do so to help eliminate unjust sentences.

You're right, I agree, there is no "OOPS" button on the DP, just as I said earlier. In the years and years between the time of sentencing and the final day, they have chances to appeal and chances for reviews. If in all that time there is no new evidence to sway the opinions of the courts to reduce or release, then sorry.

There will always be exceptions to every argument. There is a chance an innocent has been executed, but there is an even greater chance that many guilty have walked free because of technicalities and poor judicial process and plain dumb luck. There are many aspects of our judicial system that need to be overhauled and corrected. The DP is only a small part of it.

[solange82200]

I don’t feel sorry for Mr. Willingham. Nothing written here convinces me that he was innocent.

What???? that is ridiculous, did you read the story????.

Even if you do feel he is guilty, this legal system is based on the premise that you are innocent until proven guilty. There is no longer enough proof to say that this man was guilty.

And ditto about that fat fuck David Spears, that is one fucker Im willing to make an exception on.

[absinthe]

What???? that is ridiculous, did you read the story???? You arent even being fucking rational.

solange, this person already stated that "nothing" anybody could ever say and no "statistics" could ever change his/her mind.

that's what we refer to in my professional jargon as "special needs".

[Tassa]

solange, this person already stated that "nothing" anybody could ever say and no "statistics" could ever change his/her mind.

that's what we refer to in my professional jargon as "special needs".

See link for video explanation :)
Sorry I couldn't help myself...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znowCx_y7nU&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znowCx_y7nU&feature=related[/ame]

Not saying that's anyone here -- just the comment reminded me of this clip.

[Coyote]

What???? that is ridiculous, did you read the story????.

Even if you do feel he is guilty, this legal system is based on the premise that you are innocent until proven guilty. There is no longer enough proof to say that this man was guilty.

I read the story, and I didn’t say I felt he was definitely guilty, I just said I don’t feel sorry for him. He didn’t sound like a great person. He was innocent until he was tried and found guilty. At that point, there wasn’t enough evidence produced to overturn his conviction, and I don’t feel this one case is reason to abolish the death penalty.

that's what we refer to in my professional jargon as "special needs".

In my unprofessional jargon, we refer to it as taking a stand for what we believe in, but thanks for making me feel special.

[absinthe]

it's fine to believe in something, but this particular forum is devoted to debate. when you write that absolutely nothing would ever change your mind, it not only weakens your readers' perception of your critical thinking skills, it renders all opposing commentary hopeless and useless (as it pertains to you). as an open-minded person and a person who enjoys deliberating over and responding to debate, i found that statement very disheartening.

[RaVen Blackehart]

When i finished the article, I had one thought.

Stacy did it.

[swivel]

Is there any chance we find out many years from now that our DNA work is sloppy and we've been letting guilty people go free?

[drkeegee]

In most cases that appear on Dateline or on 48 Hours where the death penalty is imposed I often feel the penalty is justified. Same goes for the application of the death penalty in local/state cases I read about.

However, every once in a while there's news of cases where an apparently innocent person has been executed. ONCE is TOO OFTEN.

I wish there was a 'dead to society' penalty where the guilty party would be incarcerated and having exhausted all appeals - not allowed to be heard from again. No interviews. No visitors. Never to be heard from again. The guilty could have the rest of their life to 'make their peace' and any innocent could still live.

[solange82200]

I read the story, and I didn’t say I felt he was definitely guilty, I just said I don’t feel sorry for him. He didn’t sound like a great person. He was innocent until he was tried and found guilty. At that point, there wasn’t enough evidence produced to overturn his conviction, and I don’t feel this one case is reason to abolish the death penalty.

Although I dont agree, that makes more sense to me now. Thank you for clearing that up

[Athena]

You can state all the statistics you want, but neither this story, nor anything a person can say will change the fact that I am 100% in favor of the death penalty.

What motivation do I have to read past this? Do you respect children who plug their ears and say "Lalalalalalala!" when you're trying to explain something to them? Because that's exactly what adults look like when they proclaim that no amount of evidence or logic will ever change there minds on a subject.

There are a certain number of childhood habits we're supposed to grow out of as adults. Blocking out reason simply because you don't like what you're hearing is one of them.

That said, your position is wildly misinformed and presumptive. Even if there were NO appeals, the average DP case would be more expensive than the average life w/o parole case at both the state and federal levels. Oh, but, you don't want to see information. Mah bad.

You sure do nominate some doozies, Lieman.

[Coyote]

What motivation do I have to read past this? Do you respect children who plug their ears and say "Lalalalalalala!" when you're trying to explain something to them? Because that's exactly what adults look like when they proclaim that no amount of evidence or logic will ever change there minds on a subject.

There are a certain number of childhood habits we're supposed to grow out of as adults. Blocking out reason simply because you don't like what you're hearing is one of them.

It seems to me you’re the pot calling the kettle black. Apparently, you didn’t read past that part and you did the Lalalaing. As I said, it’s not the death penalty that is flawed, but the justice system itself. I have no doubt you could show me information supporting your theory that the average DP case would be more expensive than the average life w/o parole case at both the state and federal levels. What I’m saying is that it shouldn’t be more expensive in my opinion, and I thought this forum was a place to express my opinions even if I hold firm in them. I didn’t read in the rules that I had to be wishy-washy.

Athena, I am old. When I was in school I debated the death penalty, of course, in favor of it. Back then, statistics showed that the death penalty was less expensive that housing a prisoner in jail the rest of their lives, and that was one statistic that I used in my debate. What happened between then and now I don’t know, but I do know there’s all kind of stats out there now to support your theory that now the opposite is true. I could only get one of your links to come up and this is just a part, but enough to give the average dumbass like myself a summary:

In general, the high cost of providing representation in federal death penalty cases is a result of the heavy demands these cases place on the time and skill of counsel and the growing number of federal criminal cases in which the defendant faces a potential sentence of death. The cost of representation in each federal death penalty case depends upon several elements: the number of hours each attorney must work to discharge his or her ethical obligation to the client; the hourly rate at which the attorney is compensated; and the nature, type, and cost of investigative and expert services reasonably required. To understand why federal death penalty cases cost so much, and how these costs may be controlled consistent with constitutional and statutory mandates, requires first and foremost an understanding of the characteristics of federal death penalty cases and the special responsibilities of defense counsel appointed to such cases.

What this tells me is the extra cost lies in the representation of the defendant, and it is the lawyers that are getting rich off death penalty cases. This is our judicial system at its worst. Why do these scum need special defense and why should they be treated better than the average criminal? As I said in my first post, which you failed to read, a good old-fashioned hanging can go down in very little time for very little money. It’s the justice system that is flawed, not the death penalty.

To me, lawyer’s getting rich off my tax dollars is bullshit, and housing the scum of the earth with my tax dollars is bullshit. If your feelings are so strong against the death penalty, maybe you and others who share the same feelings can pool your money together and buy the lard ass Mr. Spears an excellent defense attorney, and pay for his housing as his fat ass sits in that jail cell. Me, I’d just as well see the son of a bitch dead.

[Athena]

What this tells me is the extra cost lies in the representation of the defendant, and it is the lawyers that are getting rich off death penalty cases. This is our judicial system at its worst. Why do these scum need special defense and why should they be treated better than the average criminal? As I said in my first post, which you failed to read, a good old-fashioned hanging can go down in very little time for very little money. It’s the justice system that is flawed, not the death penalty.

To me, lawyer’s getting rich off my tax dollars is bullshit, and housing the scum of the earth with my tax dollars is bullshit. If your feelings are so strong against the death penalty, maybe you and others who share the same feelings can pool your money together and buy the lard ass Mr. Spears an excellent defense attorney, and pay for his housing as his fat ass sits in that jail cell. Me, I’d just as well see the son of a bitch dead.

Save me the "I'm old" crap, like that's some excuse. My grandmother is 84 years old and used that to justify her plan to vote for Hillary simply because she's a woman. I don't need you, nor do I want you, to be wishy-washy. I want you to be intellectually honest, which, based on this particular conversation, is something you seem to have a problem with. There's nothing respectable about coming out of the gate with blinders on. Respect... That's something you fogies appreciate, right?

Do you really not understand why a man whose LIFE is one the line requires a higher caliber of defense (and prosecution)? No, you're too articulate for me to buy that line, but I'll explain it anyway. Non-capital cases have an even HIGHER rate of exoneration. You may find those appeals unnecessary, but the truth is, many convictions have been overturned as the result of multiple appeals. Sometimes it takes that long to get access to DNA evidence or witness testimony that was initially excluded. Those appeals are necessary to limit the possibility of wrongful execution, but they do just that... merely limit, not eliminate.

The year is 2000. Governor Ryan of Illinois has placed a moratorium on the death penalty because their exoneration rate was over 50%... and this was under the increased scrutiny of capital punishment. "Flawed"? That's laughable. There is NO way we can guarantee zero wrongful execution, especially now that we've determined that DNA can be easily fabricated, and the Academy of Sciences has no faith in forensic science in general.

To know this and to continue to support capital punishment says something about a person, and it's nothing good.

[SickenEd]

David Spears is a great example of this pansy ass complete waste of my tax dollars. His attorney recently filed objections to one of the aggravating circumstances that the prosecutor cited in his intent to seek the death penalty. Spears' lawyer argued that the circumstance of "wantonly vile, horrible, or inhuman" is unconstitutionally vague. Prosecutors argue the motion is a standard filing in every death penalty case. He killed little Rowan Ford in November 2007 and his trial isn’t scheduled until March of next year. This sorry ass piece of lard should be dead by now. He raped and killed this innocent young girl and threw her corpse down in a hole in the woods to let the wild animals eat what was left of her. Revenge would be torturing him the same. Justice would be hanging his fat ass in a tree so he’ll no longer be a burden on society.

This happened like 2 miles from my home. I know his "side kick" in this crime Chris Collings. I agree sooo much with you. The horrible things they did to that poor little girl are worthy of nothing less than death!!

[drkeegee]

To me, lawyer’s getting rich off my tax dollars is bullshit, and housing the scum of the earth with my tax dollars is bullshit.

No arguement - but

a man whose LIFE is one the line requires a higher caliber of defense

And in my book that trumps putting up with bullshit - it's the price of a free and humane society.

Surely most of the people sentenced to death have richly earned their sentence. But most does not guarantee that it means all - and that's what bothers me.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

I do nominate them, don't I, Athena. but that post earlier still won. It's like when you argued that driving while talking with cell phones is deadly too, so that makes drunk driving something that should not be criminal. Regardless of what kind of statistics back up death by running your mouth on a phone, drunk driving is still a killer, still blatantly rolling the dice with one's own life and others, and should be criminal.

Whatever the cost with the death penalty, it is still a good thing. There has got to be a justice for those few who truly deserve to die, and parading around in a prison laughing, marrying and having sex in trailers every weekend, while playing football games, watching TV, yucking it up with friends isn't it. Dying is. Regardless of the cost. I would rather my tax dollars go into that, then feeding these piles of shit for the rest of their rotten lives.

[Athena]

I do nominate them, don't I, Athena. but that post earlier still won. It's like when you argued that driving while talking with cell phones is deadly too, so that makes drunk driving something that should not be criminal. Regardless of what kind of statistics back up death by running your mouth on a phone, drunk driving is still a killer, still blatantly rolling the dice with one's own life and others, and should be criminal.

Whatever the cost with the death penalty, it is still a good thing. There has got to be a justice for those few who truly deserve to die, and parading around in a prison laughing, marrying and having sex in trailers every weekend, while playing football games, watching TV, yucking it up with friends isn't it. Dying is. Regardless of the cost. I would rather my tax dollars go into that, then feeding these piles of shit for the rest of their rotten lives.

This argument isn't about cost, though, Lieman, which is why your nomination misses the mark. Cost is simply a contributing factor to my disapproval of the death penalty in practice.

The argument, boiled down to its most simple terms, is this: Understanding that the death penalty is not and will never be infallably accurate, is the handful of innocent people who are executed justified by the fact that we get to execute the truly guilty?

From my perspective, the answer is no. The purpose of the justice system is prevention, more than anything. If we can prevent future crimes occurring without the risk of executing innocents - for less than the cost of execution - why shouldn't we?

Why? Because the DP makes people feel good. That's what I'm hearing, and that's fail of epic proportions.

Coyote is arguing from a perspective not rooted in reality. The things that make capital cases more expensive will NEVER be eliminated, for logical and constitutional reasons. So, to argue that we should just make it cheaper by removing the scrutiny applied and THEN removing appeals is not only totally unreasonable, but it would actually contribute to the reason I'm against the DP in the first place - risk posed to innocent individuals.

I'm not down for executing innocent people for the sake of principle when there is a reasonable, cost effective alternative. How anyone could be is beyond me. It's a position comprised of pure emotion, with no logic to support it.

And christ, Lieman, I never argued that drunk driving should not be criminal. I said that it should not be treated by incarceration. Our jails should not be full of people who didn't actually cause any damage. That's what penalties, fines, house arrest and community service are for. There's a HUGE difference. And there are multiple threads that illustrate this. I've maintained the exact same stance on the issue in half a dozen threads that you've been involved in. Are you purposely twisting it to illicit a response, or is your memory of it just that inaccurate?

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

This argument isn't about cost, though, Lieman, which is why your nomination misses the mark. Cost is simply a contributing factor to my disapproval of the death penalty in practice.

The argument, boiled down to its most simple terms, is this: Understanding that the death penalty is not and will never be infallably accurate, is the handful of innocent people who are executed justified by the fact that we get to execute the truly guilty?

From my perspective, the answer is no. The purpose of the justice system is prevention, more than anything. If we can prevent future crimes occurring without the risk of executing innocents - for less than the cost of execution - why shouldn't we?

Why? Because the DP makes people feel good. That's what I'm hearing, and that's fail of epic proportions.

Coyote is arguing from a perspective not rooted in reality. The things that make capital cases more expensive will NEVER be eliminated, for logical and constitutional reasons. So, to argue that we should just make it cheaper by removing the scrutiny applied and THEN removing appeals is not only totally unreasonable, but it would actually contribute to the reason I'm against the DP in the first place - risk posed to innocent individuals.

I'm not down for executing innocent people for the sake of principle when there is a reasonable, cost effective alternative. How anyone could be is beyond me. It's a position comprised of pure emotion, with no logic to support it.

And christ, Lieman, I never argued that drunk driving should not be criminal. I said that it should not be treated by incarceration. Our jails should not be full of people who didn't actually cause any damage. That's what penalties, fines, house arrest and community service are for. There's a HUGE difference. And there are multiple threads that illustrate this. I've maintained the exact same stance on the issue in half a dozen threads that you've been involved in. Are you purposely twisting it to illicit a response, or is your memory of it just that inaccurate?

As for the drunk driving thread, my memory was inaccurate, and I apologize. I'll come back to this in a bit. Have to run.

[solange82200]

Well, since Lieman gets to nominate posts, so do I lol:

Do you really not understand why a man whose LIFE is one the line requires a higher caliber of defense (and prosecution)? No, you're too articulate for me to buy that line, but I'll explain it anyway. Non-capital cases have an even HIGHER rate of exoneration. You may find those appeals unnecessary, but the truth is, many convictions have been overturned as the result of multiple appeals. Sometimes it takes that long to get access to DNA evidence or witness testimony that was initially excluded. Those appeals are necessary to limit the possibility of wrongful execution, but they do just that... merely limit, not eliminate.

The year is 2000. Governor Ryan of Illinois has placed a moratorium on the death penalty because their exoneration rate was over 50%... and this was under the increased scrutiny of capital punishment. "Flawed"? That's laughable. There is NO way we can guarantee zero wrongful execution, especially now that we've determined that DNA can be easily fabricated, and the Academy of Sciences has no faith in forensic science in general.

To know this and to continue to support capital punishment says something about a person, and it's nothing good.

Excellent post Athena, I dont think anyone I know can put forth an argument better than you.

Coyote, I understand you. Some folks I disagree with on here, although I respect their opinion, I cant always understand where they are coming from. But I do understand how you feel. I just can't logically look at the death penalty in general and say that it makes sense the way it is right now. Would I like to see David Spears and Chris Collings hung to death like the dirty turds they are? Yes. I just cant justify the killing of ANOTHER innocent person to achieve that. People who are innocent and get put to death are just as much victims as little Rowan was. I know it's not as horrific as the way she died, and i know they are adults and not children, but it's still murder.

BTW, this story just broke here in Miami the other day:

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/flor...y/1227415.html

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/bro...,2513571.story

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/co...caravella.html

THIS MAN WAS 15 WHEN HE WENT TO PRISON FOR A CRIME HE DIDNT COMMIT.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

Athena makes good points wrapped around a load of semantics, and she knows as well as I do that she does it to big down common sense, and win.

The bottom line here, is that we can argue about the death sentence all day long, and I have read all the links, and I have seen the thoughtfulness that has gone into the debate here, and appreciate it. I have not seen, one thing that has swayed me.

For this ridiculous and emotional story used for this thread, I can post a hundred that will illustrate why putting some to death is so important.

We keep saying, "so it boils down to making people feel better"......"That's just not good enough."

Well yes it is. Yes it is. And if it boils down to that, then let it boil over. It's right and wrong. It's real simple if you let it be.

[solange82200]

I have not seen, one thing that has swayed me.

Well, I'll say this. If knowing that innocent people are being put to death in the name of justice doesn't sway you, I guess nothing will. I don't know any other consequence of the death penalty that could be as horrific as that.

[Athena]

Athena makes good points wrapped around a load of semantics, and she knows as well as I do that she does it to big down common sense, and win.

While that is certainly not beneath me, that's not what I'm doing, here. The facts are clear, the standard is clear, my statements are clear. I don't care about "winning" in this venue - for what? I get no trophy or ribbon. Nope... when it comes to arguments like this one, my only goal is to broaden people's focus on the issue. The considerations that surround capital punishment in America extend far beyond, "I want that fucker to cease to exist," and I'm genuinely curious as to what the tipping point is and if one even exists.

You admit, honestly and admirably, that this comes down to principle for you - that the ability to kill the guilty overrides the pretty significant negatives even though it provides no exclusive benefit... other than satisfying some emotional need.

I'd genuinely like to know why that emotional element is so heavily weighted. Why is it so important that it overshadows the dramatic downsides?

[Pete Bondurant]

Execute everyone on death row. Perhaps some of them are innocent of the crime for which they have been incarcerated, but do not think for one moment that they are innocent altogether. If these (presumably) innocent individuals were not in prison for one crime, they would have been free to commit another. It is better that society in general...in totality...be protected, than to concern oneself over the guilt or innocence of a single individual, especially an individual who obviously contributed very little to the population as a whole. This is my unshakeable belief. Security and safety are issues far too important to be compromised because of a minor error in the prosecution of one case, or even several cases.

[solange82200]

Thanks for sharing Pete *rolls eyes*

[Coyote]

Save me the "I'm old" crap, like that's some excuse.

No Athena, age doesn’t have anything to do with it. You are just as strongly against the death penalty as I am for it, as your very first post on here starts:

I'm not a particularly emotional person, but this is one issue I'm quasi-rabid about.

I actually appreciate someone who has such strong feelings on a particular subject. I’m not using age as an excuse for anything; just trying to show that the statistics haven’t always shown what they do now. Things were different 20 years ago. As time’s gone on, the defendant’s have been given more and more, while the victims seem to become insignificant. I looked back through this thread and I can only find one post where someone mentions the victim and their family. You say I’m arguing in a perspective not rooted in reality. Let me clear that conception up for you.

You say:

I'm not down for executing innocent people for the sake of principle when there is a reasonable, cost effective alternative. How anyone could be is beyond me.

The purpose of the justice system is prevention, more than anything. If we can prevent future crimes occurring without the risk of executing innocents - for less than the cost of execution - why shouldn't we?

Let’s start with cost. Explain to me how supporting someone in prison the rest of his life is a cheaper alternative to killing him. I’m not talking about the trial, the defense, or any of that legal crap. Simply spending life in prison, or killing him off. Show me actual numbers from a reliable source. I haven’t seen any because they’re not there. Killing off the prisoner is cheaper; that’s reality.

Prevention – reality: Prisoners can and have killed in prison. Prisoners can and have escaped from prison. By execution is the only guarantee that they will not kill again.

To satisfy one’s emotional needs, runecire said it best in this post, the only one who really takes into consideration the victim and their family:

While locking someone up for life does have the advantage of someday being able to release a wrongfully imprisoned person ( the death penalty has no "oops" button), I also do not believe that anyone convicted BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT should be allowed to live out their lives while their victims and the victims' families will suffer pain and loss for the rest of their lives.

Eye for an eye. There are some monsters that must die. It is how we keep sanity and comfort in our society. When we know that the monsters of the world will pay with their lives, it gives us an emotional comfort...a psychological comfort. How many did NOT cry with joy at the death of Hitler? How many did NOT dance in the streets with the death of Stalin? How many of you did NOT give a sigh of relief when Saddam was hung? How many of you would not give a shout of joy at the news that Bin Laden is dead and gone for ever and never to return?

We have a basic need, an intrinsic desire, to know that evil cannot and will not endure. It is how we go on living with hope and optimism. We wish for it every day on this site when the evil served upon children is punished. We want and desire the death of child killers and evil doers. It is natural. It may not be PC, it certainly is not popular, to want the death of another human, but it is in all of us. It is part of what makes us human.

If Monster is allowed to live out it's life, there will always be the innate and unconquerable fear that that Monster could escape and hurt again. There is no comfort for victims in knowing it could possibly happen again. Only when the evil is gone and the monster is slain can a victim (or their family) truely start down the road to healing and regrowth; only then can there be hope for the future.

Yea, we could continue to argue this back & forth indefinitely, as you’re no more willing to budge in your beliefs than I am. However, I’m going to have to agree to disagree with you on this one.

[Pete Bondurant]

Thanks for sharing Pete *rolls eyes*

You are quite welcome, ma cherie. Remember...I am always here for you....unless you start dating coloured men.

[solange82200]

You are quite welcome, ma cherie. Remember...I am always here for you....unless you start dating coloured men.

Too late!

Coyote, part of the reason we aren't talking about the victims family is because this thread is focused on those who are innocent, so the victim's family has nothing to do with it. I know we are talking about abolishing the death penalty altogether, and that does affect victim's families, so I understand that is what you meant, but I just wanted to point out that maybe we are both focusing more on different aspects of this.

One thing that really irks me is talk of "good and evil". If only real life was as black and white as that. Just curious, where does executing innocent people fall into your measurement of "good and evil"?

[Pete Bondurant]

Too late!

Why am I not suprised by this?

[Coyote]

One thing that really irks me is talk of "good and evil". If only real life was as black and white as that. Just curious, where does executing innocent people fall into your measurement of "good and evil"?

I’m not sure what you’re referring to in regards to “good and evil”; I didn’t say anything about that. As far as executing innocent people? I don’t believe anyone on death row is truly innocent. Mr. Willingham is a great example of this. He may not have set fire to the home to intentionally kill his children. However, he wasn’t a nice man, or innocent of any wrongdoing.

Very good thread by the way solange!