Guy attempts to kill his child

So, Reno, am I correct in assuming from your post above that you are against the death penalty? I don't believe you actually really said except for saying you were outnumbered 4-1, or something like that.

Those were all interesting and informative statistics that you stated. I have heard or read some statistics regarding this subject before, but I don't remember them at the moment, so I will take your word and references to heart as being correct, etc.

Oh, I honestly don't doubt that knowing they might face the death penalty may not make criminals stop committing crimes, etc. As I said previously, some of them wouldn't care no matter what.

I think we've "reformed" the death penalty and other various laws so much that they have become almost ineffective in some cases. The legal system is for lack of a better description at the moment, a " joke " in some ways. Today's modern day criminals are smart, especially as far as the legal system goes. They may get a lawyer who really doesn't care if they are guilty or not, but will get try to get them off or a lighter sentence, no matter what. They may spend years just waiting to have a sentence enforced (including a death penalty), and during that time be afforded numerous appeals, stays, etc. which may weaken the original death penalty sentence in some ways. These laws and sentences need to be enforced tougher, quicker, and stronger. If that were to happen, the death penalty laws may show more positive results overall.

Interesting quote regarding the "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". I can understand that. The sad part though is that we are not talking about eyes here, but lives. If someone receives the death penalty that means most times that they have taken someone else's life, usually in a very cruel way, etc. People can live blinded, and very successful lives at that, however, if someone has been murdered at the hands of another, then that person has lost their life and whatever future they could have had.

*switching off analytic mode and turning on the right hemisphere of brain*

I wrote:

An average murder rate coupled with an astronomically high number of executions leads to the logical conclusion that, despite popular belief amongst it's supporters, the Death Penalty is NOT an effective deterrent to murder.

Sorry, like I said in the italics I was kind of in an objective trance, (happens when I write purely around statistics and logic) but, yes, you are correct in your assumption that I am against the Death penalty... And to your statement that followed... It was a joke, mate; didn't you see the smiley?!

So you basically agree that logically following the statistics and data available to Texas proves that the death penalty does not stop criminals from committing murder, right? Okay, I guess we can both scratch those arguments out of our *, then, (although I expect DrkTr14ce to join up soon!).

Moving on, your current argument is that the Death Penalty is ineffective because of the enormous amount of time spent during the actual trial and how difficult it is to convict someone... We're talking about whether or not to murder someone here, of course it's going to take some time! Death is the ultimate conviction, once you go, it's very difficult/impossible to reinsert whatever it was that gave you life, back into your body. Knowing this, the legal system has to be really careful not to kill an innocent. Every single person who is against the death penalty will throw this argument at you immediately. The fact is Innocent people in recent times have been murdered by the US government by wrongful convictions; and this is going by how the legal system currently runs, if it were to run the way you described it, as, "tougher, quicker, and stronger" then there will no doubt be a huge spike in the number of innocent dead, hell, you may even end up killing more innocents than the criminals themselves! Or maybe the US will go the way of China, where the police simply pull you to the side and execute you on the spot... a bullet and a few seconds is much less expensive than a dose of lethal injection and years of proving without a doubt the condemned one's guilt. Oh yeah, as for the lawyer thing; Lawyers when they enter the court enter a mental and charismatic battle with the prosecutor... I don't think in the history of such systems, a lawyer has ever stopped in mid-battle and said something along the lines of, "You know what, you're right mate... Everything I've said this whole time has been absolute *... *solemnly, with his head hung low, he turns to his client...* He's guilty!!! *now pointing and screaming* Kill 'im!!! He's Guilty!!!!!!"

Ah, and for the quote... Ghandi, leader of the Indian Independence Movement, is the one who said it... It basically meant something along the lines of if I were to kill someone, and then someone saw this and killed me, what would that do to improve the circumstances other than introduce more death and destruction to the world? It's a hypocritical thing to say that the correct way to punish someone for murder is to murder them ourselves. It sets a terrible example and will ultimately lead to more and more death.

"A life for a life makes the whole world rot!" ......Okay, that was bad, but do you see my point?

I thought the quote was, "An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind." XD

Reno wrote:

So you basically agree that logically following the statistics and data available to Texas proves that the death penalty does not stop criminals from committing murder, right?

I think I applauded your "statistics" and said that they were impressive, or something to that nature, however I don't need statistics to let me know that criminals will continue to do criminal acts with or without a death penalty. That is almost a given fact and due to the nature of some individuals, I think. Do I think a death penalty would or might stop some of these acts, maybe yes and maybe no, but I do think it couldn't hurt to try, and if it works in only one case, then that is enough for that would be one "innocent" life saved from the hands of a maniac.

Reno wrote:

Moving on, your current argument is that the Death Penalty is ineffective because of the enormous amount of time spent during the actual trial and how difficult it is to convict someone... We're talking about whether or not to murder someone here, of course it's going to take some time! Death is the ultimate conviction, once you go, it's very difficult/impossible to reinsert whatever it was that gave you life, back into your body. Knowing this, the legal system has to be really careful not to kill an innocent. Every single person who is against the death penalty will throw this argument at you immediately. The fact is Innocent people in recent times have been murdered by the US government by wrongful convictions; and this is going by how the legal system currently runs, if it were to run the way you described it, as, "tougher, quicker, and stronger" then there will no doubt be a huge spike in the number of innocent dead, hell, you may even end up killing more innocents than the criminals themselves! Or maybe the US will go the way of China, where the police simply pull you to the side and execute you on the spot... a bullet and a few seconds is much less expensive than a dose of lethal injection and years of proving without a doubt the condemned one's guilt. Oh yeah, as for the lawyer thing; Lawyers when they enter the court enter a mental and charismatic battle with the prosecutor... I don't think in the history of such systems, a lawyer has ever stopped in mid-battle and said something along the lines of, "You know what, you're right mate... Everything I've said this whole time has been absolute *... *solemnly, with his head hung low, he turns to his client...* He's guilty!!! *now pointing and screaming* Kill 'im!!! He's Guilty!!!!!!"

For someone who has been tried, found guilty, and convicted of murder, I believe onejury trial is enough. Possibly one appeal in some cases if there was any doubt whatsoever, but no more than that. These cases where they appeal, appeal, and keep appealing and keep this going for years (sometimes on just some small technical issue) is just insane. I would assume that in today's legal system where everything is so advanced and technologically dealt with that it would be rather easy to prove someone guilty or innocent with the information available. Sometimes that may not be the case, and I could understand a continuance of the legal process in that instance, but in these cases where a person is guilty, has pretty much stated they are guilty, etc., then one trial and no more. Then inforce the sentence. All these repeat trials are strangling and bogging down our current legal system.

Reno wrote:

Ah, and for the quote... Ghandi, leader of the Indian Independence Movement, is the one who said it... It basically meant something along the lines of if I were to kill someone, and then someone saw this and killed me, what would that do to improve the circumstances other than introduce more death and destruction to the world? It's a hypocritical thing to say that the correct way to punish someone for murder is to murder them ourselves. It sets a terrible example and will ultimately lead to more and more death.

Quite the contrary, I don't believe it would bring more death and destruction to the world, as you say. If someone kills someone, then they must suffer the consequences of their own freely chosen actions (which they inflicted on an innocent person) by being subjected to a death penalty sentence, then the world will see that justice has been carried out and the law has been fulfilled and upheld. There must be laws and they must be carried out. If there are no laws and they aren't carried out, then the world will run rampart and nobody will be safe. It sounds a little bit like now in some cases, probably because some laws are so untolerant as it is. I don't believe it is hypocritical at all. They chose this path when they murdered by their own hand first. It is simply carrying out a punishment.

Found this article yesterday regarding the original topic thread of this post begun by Kaloes where the father was accused of harming his child:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/20 ... victe.html

And, another article on this story, with the man being sentenced to 25 years.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341969,00.html


Maybe it's just me, but I don't think that's a long enough sentence for someone who did these horrible things to a child.

Silver_Surfer1 wrote:

And, another article on this story, with the man being sentenced to 25 years.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341969,00.html


Maybe it's just me, but I don't think that's a long enough sentence for someone who did these horrible things to a child.

They should put him in a large microwave oven for an additional 25 years. >_>