New Mexico repeals Death Penalty

[wideright82]

Let me paint a picture for you: 3 men walk into a crowded bank, intent on robbing it. In the process, they kill (execution-style), every employee and customer in the bank, but not before one of the tellers hit the silent alarm button. The cops respond, trap the guys in the building, a shootout ensues, one cop is killed, one of the bad guys is killed, but two surrender. A cop and multiple innocents are dead.

You can honestly say that in THIS situation, where they're caught RED HANDED, that these fcuksticks should NOT be subject to the death penalty? You'd rather they rot in prison and cost taxpayers millions MORE dollars? I'm not looking at it as a deterrent. I'm looking at it as retribution. That person has LOST his right to live.

you paint a good picture...
Let me paint one

A drug store gets robbed... in the process an employee is shot to death and the robber flees out the front door... five minutes later the police have their suspect running down the street - he fits the description perfectly and he has the bag of stolen drugs in his hand...

He is tried & convicted and now on death row...

Turns out he is not the killer and in no way guilty of murder... he simply picked up the bag as a guy ran buy him on the street - and like an idiot ran (because he was 17 and stupid) when the police car rolled up

Now what...? over 6% of all death row inmates are actually not guilty of Murder.. they are most likely not "great guys" and in no way are they model citizens... but not guilty of the crime they are being put to death for

BTW: I'm not necessarily against the death penalty - just a fun topic to discuss

I think that is his point. The unclarity and the terribly run nature of the death penalty is what needs to go, not the death penalty as a whole. The cut and dry nature of a case should be a very determining factor. Any sort of fuzziness in the trial, in my opinion, should the throw the death penalty out the window as a just punishment. Any room for error is too much room in my eyes.

[Cleets Part 2]

you paint a good picture...
Let me paint one

A drug store gets robbed... in the process an employee is shot to death and the robber flees out the front door... five minutes later the police have their suspect running down the street - he fits the description perfectly and he has the bag of stolen drugs in his hand...

He is tried & convicted and now on death row...

Turns out he is not the killer and in no way guilty of murder... he simply picked up the bag as a guy ran buy him on the street - and like an idiot ran (because he was 17 and stupid) when the police car rolled up

Now what...? over 6% of all death row inmates are actually not guilty of Murder.. they are most likely not "great guys" and in no way are they model citizens... but not guilty of the crime they are being put to death for

BTW: I'm not necessarily against the death penalty - just a fun topic to discuss

I think that is his point. The unclarity and the terribly run nature of the death penalty is what needs to go, not the death penalty as a whole. The cut and dry nature of a case should be a very determining factor. Any sort of fuzziness in the trial, in my opinion, should the throw the death penalty out the window as a just punishment. Any room for error is too much room in my eyes.

I absolutely agree 100%

[Appaholic]

What argument for the death penalty, other than retribution is accurate? It's been proven it's not a deterrent, which clearly shows it doesn't "set an example." I don't believe the government should have the power to kill someone--to pay them back. It is dangerous, in my opinion, to allow the government that power. I know I'm in a minority here with limiting the power of the government, but I am 100% against the death penalty, and nothing (in the news, books, articles, or studying the DP in law school) has changed that.

But, on a separate part of your post. How do you propose to correct the MISUSE of the death penalty? Is it to further refine who can and cannot face the DP? Changing the judicial system as a whole?

Let me paint a picture for you: 3 men walk into a crowded bank, intent on robbing it. In the process, they kill (execution-style), every employee and customer in the bank, but not before one of the tellers hit the silent alarm button. The cops respond, trap the guys in the building, a shootout ensues, one cop is killed, one of the bad guys is killed, but two surrender. A cop and multiple innocents are dead.

You can honestly say that in THIS situation, where they're caught RED HANDED, that these fcuksticks should NOT be subject to the death penalty? You'd rather they rot in prison and cost taxpayers millions MORE dollars? I'm not looking at it as a deterrent. I'm looking at it as retribution. That person has LOST his right to live.

Was this before or after the bank received a bailout and the executive-paid bonuses?

[ASUMountaineer]

Let me paint a picture for you: 3 men walk into a crowded bank, intent on robbing it. In the process, they kill (execution-style), every employee and customer in the bank, but not before one of the tellers hit the silent alarm button. The cops respond, trap the guys in the building, a shootout ensues, one cop is killed, one of the bad guys is killed, but two surrender. A cop and multiple innocents are dead.

You can honestly say that in THIS situation, where they're caught RED HANDED, that these fcuksticks should NOT be subject to the death penalty? You'd rather they rot in prison and cost taxpayers millions MORE dollars? I'm not looking at it as a deterrent. I'm looking at it as retribution. That person has LOST his right to live.

1. It costs MORE to kill em than incarcerate em

2. you are seeking vengeance, not justice. there is no justice in the state committing murder, even of a murderer. lock em up, toss out the key. prison is a terrible fate, and a suitable punishment (IMO a fate worse than death)

Spot on. I had said in my post, other than retribution, what other arguments? AZ actually said in his diatribe, "retribution." No other argument. Of course, I would want to enact revenge, but that is not the state's place.

AZ, I'm not defending the murderer, but we have the ability to lock them up forever. One thing that I would support, would be a little torture. Not waterboarding, but sleep deprivation, periods of time without food, in place of the state "killing the murderer back." TTBF, great post.

[wideright82]

1. It costs MORE to kill em than incarcerate em

2. you are seeking vengeance, not justice. there is no justice in the state committing murder, even of a murderer. lock em up, toss out the key. prison is a terrible fate, and a suitable punishment (IMO a fate worse than death)

Spot on. I had said in my post, other than retribution, what other arguments? AZ actually said in his diatribe, "retribution." No other argument. Of course, I would want to enact revenge, but that is not the state's place. TTBF, great post.

I get what both of you are saying, and don't agree or disagree really, but when talking about big gov I think of the Federal Government. I feel the state, and throughout states, should have their own deciding factor whether they want to use the death penalty. In my eyes, the states deciding for themselves, does not constitute big government.

[ASUMountaineer]

Spot on. I had said in my post, other than retribution, what other arguments? AZ actually said in his diatribe, "retribution." No other argument. Of course, I would want to enact revenge, but that is not the state's place. TTBF, great post.

I get what both of you are saying, and don't agree or disagree really, but when talking about big gov I think of the Federal Government. I feel the state, and throughout states, should have their own deciding factor whether they want to use the death penalty. In my eyes, the states deciding for themselves, does not constitute big government.

But, I didn't say anything about big government, I said the state should not have that authority--it should not be able to kill someone as a punishment. Now, the problem is, in some people's view, it is a federal issue because it can be considered "cruel and unusual punishment." Others don't want to touch that issue with a stick. I just really have a problem with giving the state (and by state I mean state and federal government) the power to take life as punishment.

[wideright82]

I get what both of you are saying, and don't agree or disagree really, but when talking about big gov I think of the Federal Government. I feel the state, and throughout states, should have their own deciding factor whether they want to use the death penalty. In my eyes, the states deciding for themselves, does not constitute big government.

But, I didn't say anything about big government, I said the state should not have that authority--it should not be able to kill someone as a punishment. Now, the problem is, in some people's view, it is a federal issue because it can be considered "cruel and unusual punishment." Others don't want to touch that issue with a stick. I just really have a problem with giving the state (and by state I mean state and federal government) the power to take life as punishment.

You did not, I guess I am just so used to the big government talk i assumed it was somewhere in this thread. My bad.


As far as the state or fed deciding a man's fate, well, I'll leave that up to some moral debate. I personally don't care whether or not he is in jail for life or killed. My thoughts are, the bastard(s) isn't worth my thoughts, let alone worth me worrying about what happens to him.

[ASUMountaineer]

But, I didn't say anything about big government, I said the state should not have that authority--it should not be able to kill someone as a punishment. Now, the problem is, in some people's view, it is a federal issue because it can be considered "cruel and unusual punishment." Others don't want to touch that issue with a stick. I just really have a problem with giving the state (and by state I mean state and federal government) the power to take life as punishment.

You did not, I guess I am just so used to the big government talk i assumed it was somewhere in this thread. My bad.


As far as the state or fed deciding a man's fate, well, I'll leave that up to some moral debate. I personally don't care whether or not he is in jail for life or killed. My thoughts are, the bastard(s) isn't worth my thoughts, let alone worth me worrying about what happens to him.

Well, and it's a great assumption to figure I would be talking about big government.

With that said, my only response to your post would be that I understand. I do, BUT ( ) I would worry what could happen if everyone had that sentiment and I was wrongly accused of a murder I did not commit.

[wideright82]

You did not, I guess I am just so used to the big government talk i assumed it was somewhere in this thread. My bad.


As far as the state or fed deciding a man's fate, well, I'll leave that up to some moral debate. I personally don't care whether or not he is in jail for life or killed. My thoughts are, the bastard(s) isn't worth my thoughts, let alone worth me worrying about what happens to him.

Well, and it's a great assumption to figure I would be talking about big government.

With that said, my only response to your post would be that I understand. I do, BUT ( ) I would worry what could happen if everyone had that sentiment and I was wrongly accused of a murder I did not commit.

Which leads us back to the point Gov Richardson made. With the state of the legislative system the way it is, there is no way they can keep the death penalty. Doesn't make it wrong, just means that with out a fail proof method, it seems pretty stupid to keep.

[ASUMountaineer]

Well, and it's a great assumption to figure I would be talking about big government.

With that said, my only response to your post would be that I understand. I do, BUT ( ) I would worry what could happen if everyone had that sentiment and I was wrongly accused of a murder I did not commit.

Which leads us back to the point Gov Richardson made. With the state of the legislative system the way it is, there is no way they can keep the death penalty. Doesn't make it wrong, just means that with out a fail proof method, it seems pretty stupid to keep.

Well, I applaud his decision, and while I agree with his reasoning I also take it one step further in that the state should not have the ability to take life for revenge/ retribution. Just my $.005 worth

[Gil Dobie]

I can go another route and say one of the fetuses could develop a cure for cancer.

I don't support Abortion either. Ending human life is not a good answer to anything.

[Gil Dobie]

Great News

I don't understand how Conks can be against abortion and pro death penalty.

This Conk is Pro-Choice AND Pro-Death Penalty and I know many, MANY "conks" who have the same set of beliefs, so you might want to reshape that "box" you're thinking in, Gil.

I don't see any hypocrisy in you view.

[wideright82]

I can go another route and say one of the fetuses could develop a cure for cancer.

I don't support Abortion either. Ending human life is not a good answer to anything.

Except over population

[ASUMountaineer]

I don't support Abortion either. Ending human life is not a good answer to anything.

Except over population

Is that similar to the answer to "the Jewish Question?"



Cue Citdog in 5...4...3...2...

[OL FU]

"Regardless of my personal opinion about the death penalty, I do not have confidence in the criminal justice system as it currently operates to be the final arbiter when it comes to who lives and who dies for their crime," Richardson said in a statement Wednesday.

I have not moral problem with the death penatly, but the above sums up my thoughts. Good choice Bill.

[HI54UNI]

Good call. The death penalty costs more than life in prison. Why waste money on all the appeals, separated cell blocks, etc.?