Defending the Truth

Yep, I forgot about the double jeopardy. We should not ever have to worry about Manson seeing the sunrise outside of whatever prison he rots in, though.

Walker was an example. Ames falls into the same category. In real terms, Walker was worse, because of what he gave away. Had we gone to war with the Warsaw Pact while Walker was active (and I was in the military at the time) we would have suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties, as a direct result of Walker's perfidy. There are others I would include in this category, but the bottom line is that those who commit treason against the US, especially on this scale, deserve the death penalty.

To me, Walker was more evil than maybe Ames, because of his personality. He was more defiant, and that evil smile before the cameras. His wife turned Walker in. He wanted leniency for his son, too. I wanted to punch the senior Walker's lights out.

Even though Walker and Ames did not get the death penalty, I do wonder if they are serving in Colorado's Supermax?

Okay, Kmchugh. I can see your point. I was not in the military myself, so the exact scope of his treachery was unknown to me. H80, We cannot convict people based upon what our perception of their personality may be, individually or as a society. We can only convict upon action.
Having said that, I do believe that treason should be a crime that warrants the death penalty upon conviction. I say this because I believe that anything that threatens the security of the United States should fall in the category of "aiding and abetting the enemy (in wartime) and "treason"in peacetime. Either way you slice the pie, we suffer greatly as a result of such actions. If we are to just allow prison sentences for such offenders, why cannot we sentence them to serve the time in the general prison population of our federal penetentiarys?

We also should not forget former FBI agent Robert Hanssen, too, who is now serving time at the Supermax in Colorado. Several KGB agents were executed when he betrayed them.

Old thread, massive cross post. But....Railing against the death penalty is a useful strategy to ensuring it is not misapplied and actually serves the purpose society has for instituting it in the first place.

I think that there are many wothwhile applications that lead capital punishment to favorable outcomes for those members of society who have waiting for the courts and legislators to permit the execution of laws that provide retribution for heinous and methodical crimes. As long as its used a detterent, which I think is the origin of that oft quote scriptural quote about eyesight, everything should work out very well, provided juries and those doing the sentencing are informed by the evidence.

Bumping this thread, if I may.

I am against the death penalty, and I came this decision after a long time, and a lot of thinking.
For me, I do not believe in the saying 'An eye for an eye'. I do not believe that we have the right to put people to death for taking anothers life. This is nothing more than revenge, and doesn't bring the victim back.
Innocent people have been put to death in the past, and there likely a few innocent people on death row even as we speak - will DNA clear them before they are executed? Is anyone even held responsible if an innocent person is executed, or is their death simply shrugged off as nothing important?
I do believe that certain people should not be permitted to live, but if I supprted the death penalty for these people, I would have to support it for everyone convicted of a crime warranting the death penalty, and I cannot do this.
Now, as I have said, many people like to say 'An eye for an eye', meaning that if you kill someone, we kill you. Is this fair? Some would say yes, but I disagree.
Do we use the 'eye for an eye' saying when it comes to other criminals? No, we don't. It seems this saying is only reserved for those who take anothers life.
We don't rape those convicted of rape, nor do we burgle the homes of those convicted of burglary. We do not defraud those convicted of fraud, nor do we assult those convicted of assult - so why do we kill people convicted of killing?
Death is the easy way out for these people. People should not support the death penalty simply because it may be cheaper than keeping someone in prison for the rest of their lives, you should support it because you believe it to be right. Cost should not come into it.

So those are my views...

As someone who has had a family member murdered, I am against capital punishment in most circumstances.

There are some circumstances that I think that capital punishment is warranted, and justified.

Examples are serial child molestors and serial killers. People like Wesley Allen Dodd and John Wayne Gacy are the epitome of evil, and do not deserve to live, IMO. The possibility of them ever getting out, one way or another (well, not now, because they are dead, but you know what I mean....) is just too scary to think about.

A good example of what I'm talking about is Kenneth McDuff.

CNN - Man blamed for 14 murders executed in Texas - November 17, 1998

I'm for the death penalty as well as long as it is applied logically and evenly. But "child molester" is a term thrown around a bit liberally to be executed. When you have onbe state wanting to execute "child molesters" for having sex with a 14 year old. How can you have another state charging 14 year olds as adults? Something is quite wrong with that system if we are a "nation" with such disparities.

I consider a 'child' to be 12 and under.

I also made the point of a 'serial' child molestor.