Capital Punishment

Capital punishment

  • Yes! kill the bastards, all of them!

    Votes: 3 8.3%
  • Yes,but only in certain cases.

    Votes: 15 41.7%
  • No! it is barbaric ,we live in a civlized age.

    Votes: 12 33.3%
  • No! it is far more a punishment to spend their life in prison.

    Votes: 5 13.9%
  • I do not know.

    Votes: 1 2.8%

  • Total voters
    36
  • Poll closed .
nonoonononononononononono.

soooo, if i ran over a squirrel with my car, i should feel just as bad as if i ran over a child? no, thats just dumb.

:rolleyes:


No one intentionally runs squirrels over!Its the intent I'm referring to.

If i beat my dog,burn it with cigarettes or inflict any deliberate pain on it for no reason its is as worse if i do the same thing to my child.Both are evil,both are premeditated and both the dog and the child look to me for protection.That is what i meant when I say cruelty to any living thing is evil.And not excusable.
 
No one intentionally runs squirrels over!Its the intent I'm referring to.

If i beat my dog,burn it with cigarettes or inflict any deliberate pain on it for no reason its is as worse if i do the same thing to my child.Both are evil,both are premeditated and both the dog and the child look to me for protection.That is what i meant when I say cruelty to any living thing is evil.And not excusable.

well what about hunters who deliberately kill animals for sport? do you feel that falls under a different category b/c they arent doing it out of anger or hatred or some sort of psychotic behavior?

not trying to be smart, just honestly wondering your take on that.
 
cruelty to any living thing is evil


and you don't think electrocuting / hanging / injecting 'supposed' criminals is cruel?

Yes it may be justified from your point of view, but the death penalty in itself is still deliberate cruelty.
 
Tell that to the 40% or so on death row who are innocent. Evidence and facts don't always support your personal opinion. That is the problem with people: they use emotion to dictate decisions, not reason.


Where on earth did you pull this 40% figure out from? Oh, that's right. Your ass.
 
and you don't think electrocuting / hanging / injecting 'supposed' criminals is cruel?

Yes it may be justified from your point of view, but the death penalty in itself is still deliberate cruelty.


I don't think it's "cruel" if the person is proven guilty of a heinous crime. Here in Ohio, we just had the first execution in awhile. The douchebag tried to say it would be "cruel and unusual" to give him the lethal injection because he had gotten so fat on death row that they'd have trouble sticking his veins.

This is how it turned out, after 20-some years where he got to sit around eating junk food.

I don't object:

Richard Wade Cooey II died peacefully Tuesday with a lethal combination of drugs administered through two needles inserted gently into veins in each arm.

He was executed by the state of Ohio for the rape and murders -- by bludgeoning and strangulation -- of two college students who were not afforded such comfort in their deaths.

"It's done," said Mary Ann Hackenberg, mother of one of the victims, Dawn McCreery, who said she could sense her daughter's presence in the death chamber.

"I know she was there," she said. "I felt her there."

Cooey was sentenced to death in 1986 for the rape and murder that year of the 20-year-old McCreery and her sorority sister, Wendy Offredo, 21. He was hours away from execution when he won a reprieve in 2003. Tuesday, his appeals ran out when the U.S. Supreme Court denied his last-ditch effort.

He remained defiant even in his final statement, uttering an obscenity when Warden Phillip Collins held a microphone above his lips, before a combination of three drugs flowed through the tubes over the course of nearly 10 minutes, ending his life.

"You ... haven't paid any attention to what I've had to say over the past 22½ years, why are you going to pay attention to what I have to say now?" he said, not looking at any of the six witnesses from the McCreery family or his three lawyers and a spiritual adviser, who were witnesses.

At 10:06 a.m., a monitor in the witness viewing room flickered to life, showing Cooey lying on a gurney in a prep room adjacent to the death chamber, his feet crossed. Technicians inserted ports into veins in each arm without difficulty, despite his legal claims that his veins would be too difficult to access partly because of his obesity.

Hackenberg, of Rocky River, one of six witnesses from the McCreery family, said, "They got it," when the needle was inserted.

Cooey shouted for his lawyer, Greg Meyers, twice. Meyers, who was in the witness room along with two other lawyers and Cooey's spiritual adviser, did not move.

At 10:15 a.m., with ports inserted and his arms strapped to boards, Cooey kicked his legs, got off the gurney, and walked to the death chamber, where he climbed onto another gurney. Six guards in white strapped him down with four black straps. Tubing, which extended from the wall in the adjacent room, was connected to the ports.

At 10:19, Cooey made his final statement and drummed his fingers -- pinky to index finger -- on the board supporting his left arm. At 10:21, he exhaled with a faint noise. Warden Phillip Kerns of the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility shook Cooey's shoulder. He did not respond. By 10:28, he was dead. Sodium pentothal induced deep sleep, pancuronium bromide stopped his breathing, and potassium chloride stopped his heart.

Hackenberg threw back her head and exhaled as a curtain was drawn across the viewing window. She hugged her son, Rob McCreery, and held the hand of her ex-husband, Robert McCreery Sr. A black hearse waited outside the death house to take Cooey's body.

Dana Cole, who identified himself as Cooey's lawyer and friend and to whom Cooey's cremated remains will be given, said Cooey was an immature 19-year-old influenced by drugs and alcohol when he committed his crime.

"What we witness here today was a killing that was planned and funded for more than 22 years," he said. "The man killed was not the same man who committed the crimes."

Rob McCreery said Cooey is exactly the same, proven by his final words.

"Just being spiteful to the very end," said McCreery. "It just shows how much this was warranted and justified."

After the execution, the family talked of their relief that Cooey had finally been brought to justice and the peacefulness of his passing despite his claims that lethal injection was "cruel and unusual."

"The thing that's going to now give us the greatest comfort is knowing that he now has to be accountable to a power greater than himself and now he's got to reckon with that," said Dawn McCreery's cousin, Kathy Miska, one of the execution witnesses.

Hackenberg was at once relieved and still angry.

"It was too easy. It's as much justice as we're going to get, as much closure as we'll get, but it was just too easy," she said.

"He didn't get a free pass," said her husband, John Hackenberg.

Rob McCreery said he had hoped for the execution for so long -- he was 17 when his big sister was killed -- that he's not sure where to turn his attention now.

"But I can tell you it was a nicer day coming out of there than it was going in," he said.

Cooey is the first Ohio inmate to be executed since May 2007, the 27th since 1999.

Cooey was 19 and home on leave from the Army when, in 1986, the Akron native and an accomplice, 17-year-old Clint Dickens, raped and murdered Offredo and McCreery.

Dickens threw a chunk of concrete from an overpass onto Offredo's car, disabling it. They then drove down to the highway and picked up the women, offering to get them help. Instead, they drove them to a secluded field in Norton where they raped them, beat them with a wooden club and strangled them with shoelaces.

Dickens was sentenced to life in prison for the crimes, in which both girls suffered through more than three hours of what Summit County Prosecutor Sherri Bevan Walsh called "fear and torture and agony." Because Dickens was still a juvenile when he committed the crime, he wasn't eligible for the death penalty.

The night before his execution, as Cooey sat on his bed or paced and slept for slightly more than an hour, Dawn McCreery's family gathered in her brother Rob's hotel room, sharing stories, watching the Browns' unexpected victory and drinking cold beers. Bevan Walsh joined them.

Rob McCreery opened a gift bag from a former Alpha Delta Pi sorority sister of Dawn and Wendy. It was a shirt with the sorority's Greek lettering, one that Dawn had actually worn. The card said it was for Rob McCreery's 5-year-old daughter.

The morning sky, still dark, was full of stars as a nearly full moon loomed over the hills of Lucasville. At breakfast in the Holiday Inn Express, someone noted that it was a harvest moon.

Perfect for execution day. "You reap what you sow," said Nicole McCreery, Rob's wife.
 
Last edited:
You are totally mistaken in saying that innocent people never get put on death row or executed nowadays. There have been multiple high profile cases in the past year alone. In one case in 2007, Kenneth Foster was hours away from being executed in Texas for murder. His crime was waiting as a young teenager in the getaway car and had no idea his cohort decided to kill someone in a robber. Texas has a very unique "law of parties" which made this murder sentence possible.


Well, if Texas has this very unique "law of parties" (that I'd have to research) why does that mean the death penalty isn't justified as it is carried out in other states? And I love how you claim this person is "innocent" and that there are so many "innocent" people on death row. Sounds like hype to me.

I'm a paranoid person who is always sensitive to the possibility that some people are falsely accused, especially with how deranged and unethical our prosecutors are. But how about the cases where an even higher burder of proof than "beyond reasonable doubt" is met? What is your objection to executing them?

My friend was just in county jail. A chick in her pod was someone in a high profile local murder case. She and a dude killed her father and his live-in girlfriend with an ax, stole their cars, and were caught asleep and stoned in the parking lot of a motel in another state. The actual murders were sadistic and cold. This female mass murderer recently plead guilty. The dude was already convicted by a jury but was spared the death penalty (she probably manipulated him into the heinous murders, so I can live with that, I guess). But why should this chick be spared the death penalty? I know what she was up to in jail because my friend told me. She is having girl-on-girl sex in jail, and she beat up a girl in there with soap put into a sock. Why should she get life in prison so that she can have more girl-on-girl sex for the rest of her life and beat up more fellow inmates with soap put into socks? What if she gets life in prison and ends up murdering a fellow inmate or a guard? I have no problem with snuffing her out. Would seem like better justice to me.
 
Last edited:
Theo, I had heard about that fat f*** on death row and the ridiculous reason for prolonging the execution :rolleyes: but I hadn't read the story of what he had actually done. I have tears in my eyes (rage & sadness in my heart) after reading that story. Too bad they can't strap that Dickens kid in next.
 
Where on earth did you pull this 40% figure out from? Oh, that's right. Your ass.

No. I already mentioned it was from a documentary on death row inmates, and the number "could be" as high as 40% "may have been" wrongfully convicted.

To me, even the death of one innocent person is far too many to satisfy some peoples sense of 'justice'.
 
To me, even the death of one innocent person is far too many to satisfy some peoples sense of 'justice'.

Now that's just crazy talk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone_ratio

Benjamin Franklin stated, "it is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer". But more authoritarian personalities are supposed to have taken the opposite view; Bismarck is believed to have stated that "it is better that ten innocent men suffer than one guilty man escape;" and Pol Pot has made similar remarks.
 
No. I already mentioned it was from a documentary on death row inmates, and the number "could be" as high as 40% "may have been" wrongfully convicted.

To me, even the death of one innocent person is far too many to satisfy some peoples sense of 'justice'.


But you actually believe 40% on death row may have been wrongfully convicted????? Come on now.

And if the death penalty were only imposed in cases where the defendant was found guilty beyond ALL doubt (as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt) your main attack of the death penalty does not apply to those cases. Do you still have a problem with executions in those cases?
 
But you actually believe 40% on death row may have been wrongfully convicted????? Come on now.

I do believe that there is a percentage of those on death row that are innocent, and innocent men have been and will be executed in the future. It's well documented, and any loss of innocent life such as this to me is unacceptable.

And if the death penalty were only imposed in cases where the defendant was found guilty beyond ALL doubt (as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt) your main attack of the death penalty does not apply to those cases. Do you still have a problem with executions in those cases?

I don't believe that with our current system I would have much faith in 'beyond all doubt'. And then again, this would be selectively killing people based on the available evidence, not necessarily what happened. DNA evidence can be mislabeled, witnesses lie, and sometimes people even confess to crimes they didn't commit to protect others, even if it means dying.

There will never, never be a concrete way to prove guilt in our society, and I do not support even one innocent death to punish those who may be guilty with death. So no, I do not support that, not at all.
 
I do believe that there is a percentage of those on death row that are innocent, and innocent men have been and will be executed in the future. It's well documented, and any loss of innocent life such as this to me is unacceptable.


I think you should stick to truth, then, in exposing these problems in the justice system. You have to be careful with the facts and figures from groups and documentary films that have a political agenda, I'm sure you know.

I don't believe that with our current system I would have much faith in 'beyond all doubt'. And then again, this would be selectively killing people based on the available evidence, not necessarily what happened. DNA evidence can be mislabeled, witnesses lie, and sometimes people even confess to crimes they didn't commit to protect others, even if it means dying.

There will never, never be a concrete way to prove guilt in our society, and I do not support even one innocent death to punish those who may be guilty with death. So no, I do not support that, not at all.

I saw one of those programs the other day where they show videos of crimes. "Most Shocking Videos" or one of the programs like it. They showed video of this guy walking into a big box store with a shotgun and mass-murdering employees. His face and his crime are clear on video. A survivor is also on video as he gets shot, as he plays dead, and as the gunman stands over him to make sure he's dead - ready to shoot him again if he moved.

This guy is guilty beyond all possible doubt. So, I take it you're okay with executing him if that's what was found to be appropriate justice at his trial? It certainly removes your concerns that he might be innocent, so I guess you'd be okay with his execution, no?
 
Last edited:
I think you should stick to truth, then, in exposing these problems in the justice system. You have to be careful with the facts and figures from groups and documentary films that have a political agenda, I'm sure you know.

Yes, I do know. And I know that many have been innocent in the past, and will be in the future, hence why I cannot support it.



I saw one of those programs the other day where they show videos of crimes. "Most Shocking Videos" or one the programs like it. They showed video of this guy walking into a big box store with a shotgun and mass-murdering employees. His face and his crime are clear on video. A survivor is also on video as he gets shot, as he plays dead, and as the gunman stands over him to make sure he's dead - ready to shoot him again if he moved.

This guy is guilty beyond all possible doubt. So, I take it you're okay with executing him if that's what was found to be appropriate justice at his trial? It certainly removes your concerns that he might be innocent, so I guess you'd be okay with his execution, no?

This is so convenient though, isn't it? "Clearly" guilty, yes, but how many crimes are clearly caught on tape like this? If we were to do what you are suggesting and put those to death who only are "clearly" guilty, then we need to define "clearly guilty". What would the standards be? Only if they are caught on tape? Ok, then that circumstance needs it's own set of rules: But then only if the tape is X quality, perhaps a pixel measurement or something? Facial recognition on said video evidence? Ok, so only if the tape is X quality and the recognition is above 98%? It is a complicated process, as you are no doubt aware as even the smallest error could land someone on death row who does not deserve to be there.

To answer your question, There is always a small factor of error, but the 'convenience' of having no error is tempting, but overall a foolish pipe dream IMO. I am sticking by my guns, and with my original answer: No.

Stick that offender in solitary confinement if he is deemed too dangerous or the crime too heinous, but let him live and have his shot at another trail or finding new evidence should there be any. If not, and he is truly guilty, then 23 hrs alone a day in a small cell awaits him until the day he dies. I think that is more than enough.
 
And I know that many have been innocent in the past, and will be in the future, hence why I cannot support it.


Who are these "many innocent" people who have been executed? How far "in the past"? Back to the days of lynchings? Very few people acually are executed in my state, and when they are it's after years of appeals. The most recent execution in Ohio (Cooey) was after 22 years of appeals. This guy sure was upset he was being snuffed out instead of getting to sit around for another 20 years jerking off and getting fat on food. Which shows that it's good to have a punishment above just life without parole.


If we were to do what you are suggesting and put those to death who only are "clearly" guilty, then we need to define "clearly guilty". What would the standards be?

You can't really define these things very clearly. A jury could be instructed in a way that guides them on the burden of proof, just as they are instructed for the other burdens of proof.

Yeah, some confessions are coerced, mistakes can be made at a lab, witnesses can be wrong, etc. But what if the mountain of evidence is so high it overcomes the possibility of mistakes like that? Like, cases that aren't resting on just one single piece of powerful evidence, but on numerous, separate pieces of powerful evidence.

Come on, now. There are a few cases here and there where the mountain of evidence is just too high to worry about these things.

You'll still stubbornly claim we can't execute him because he may be innocent? Or, will the line then be that he's too mentally ill or deficient to be executed? And European documentary filmmakers will come to town to say how barbaric America is for executing someone who has mental problems? Then, after he's been on death row for 20 years of appeals, the documentary filmmakers will return to say it is barbaric to execute him for a crime that occurred 20 years ago because he's a new man now! That's what they tried in the Cooey case, but when he gave his final words he proved he had no remorse.

Anyway, I want you on my jury when I'm on trial!!! :)


Stick that offender in solitary confinement if he is deemed too dangerous or the crime too heinous, but let him live and have his shot at another trail or finding new evidence should there be any. If not, and he is truly guilty, then 23 hrs alone a day in a small cell awaits him until the day he dies. I think that is more than enough.

23 hours alone? And what about that other hour? Guards come into contact with him when he has his hour outside or whatever, plus for various other reasons. What if he murders or assaults one of them? Or another inmate?

Creating an environment where there's no chance he can ever commit another crime would either be impossible or would require such torturous conditions that it would be far too cruel for me to tolerate. Sorry, I can't be as barbaric as advocates of that. So, snuff out the animal in humane fashion, instead. :)
 
Last edited:
troll containment = funny :D

I'm not sure if I understand the meaning of your post. I hope it wasn't directed at me. I've been trolled enough for one week, thx. And those two extreme left-wing moderators (Bored, UncleSkinny) are not exactly people who could be fair towards me. Kewpie's actually never issued an infraction against me, so apparently she has tolerance that those two lack. Anyway, I hope your message wasn't directed at me. I'm trying to post on the topics and you often have an agenda of luring people into stuff that winds up giving Bored the pretexts he's looking for.
 
Personally, I'm sick of these liberal hippie pseudo-Europeans passing judgment on American Politics...

Reporting for duty!

By the way, what's a "pseudo-European"? :confused:

I think Corrissey is really the only one who surprised me in this thread. Was NOT expecting that one! :eek:

Coiff.
 
Reporting for duty!

By the way, what's a "pseudo-European"? :confused:

I think Corrissey is really the only one who surprised me in this thread. Was NOT expecting that one! :eek:

Coiff.

I have no clue, I just wanted to make up some word to describe my annoyance as Europeans who think they are better than us. In case you haven't noticed, I usually sound incoherent when I'm ranting. But At least I do admit to it. Unlike Those Who would remain nameless otherwise. :p
 
I think Corrissey is really the only one who surprised me in this thread. Was NOT expecting that one! :eek:

Coiff.

...and I call myself a "Christian" :rolleyes: .........;)

You thought you had me alllll figured out, huh. You probably do. :p I just have zero tolerance or mercy for certain things.
 
Tags
theo vs arsenal yuck! troll containment
Back
Top Bottom