|
Post by Mr. Chris on Jun 12, 2006 12:38:41 GMT -5
I support the death penalty but his is going to far. www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/061206dntexdeathrow.dabc6bc.htmlBasically this guy is supposed to be mentally incompetent. So they cant put him to death. But if they give him these drugs he will be competent. So they want to for force ably give him the drugs so they can execute him. I think that is going to far. Then again on the other hand they are using this excuse to try to avoid the death penalty. What do you think. I say going to far.
|
|
|
Post by honeybee on Jun 12, 2006 13:25:03 GMT -5
It's a very very controversial situation that envolves not only the legal system adopted in your Country/State, but popular claim. In some countries, when someone is declared mentally incompetent they might spend the rest of his life in a mental institution, doing periodic exams to attest whether the person stills mental incompetent or not. Actually, I had never heard anything similiar to this - force someone to be on medication to then, be able to execute him... each side of discution has millions of arguments... I really wanna know it ends (can you update me???)
Anyway, I'm against death penalty 'cause I don't think State has the "power" needed to execute a person. Some mistakes can be made in the judgment, and what happens if someone is executed and in a few years they discover the person was innocent??? Of course the person who commits a felony needs to be punished, but with its own life? I mean, it's too much "an eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth"
|
|
|
Post by BTweety04 on Jun 12, 2006 14:38:26 GMT -5
Ahh, just put him out of his misery.
|
|
|
Post by Dan the G-Man on Jun 12, 2006 15:02:58 GMT -5
temporary insanity is an argument to get someone off, so they can argue temporary sanity is an excuse to execute. It is a two way street.
|
|
|
Post by honeybee on Jun 12, 2006 16:59:30 GMT -5
temporary insanity is an argument to get someone off, so they can argue temporary sanity is an excuse to execute. It is a two way street. It's a point. But the main question, for me, is: when he commit the felony, was he aware of the situation or not? 'Cause if he was, it changes to hole situation...
|
|
|
Post by Dan the G-Man on Jun 12, 2006 17:18:47 GMT -5
that is a true statement.
|
|
|
Post by honeybee on Jun 12, 2006 18:16:01 GMT -5
didn't understand, Dan... which statment are you referring to???
|
|
|
Post by dupacrash on Jun 12, 2006 20:21:27 GMT -5
years ago i remember reading about a guy on death row in washington state i think it was who found a unique way of avoiding the death penalty. he ate. he ate everything he could get his hands on and went from 200 or so pounds to over 500 pounds. he did this while the sentence was being appealed so it took well over 10 years. since the method of execution at the time was hanging his lawyers said it would be inhumane to execute him like that and the judges agreed. he might be a scumbag but give him points for ingenuity.
|
|
|
Post by Dan the G-Man on Jun 12, 2006 20:50:16 GMT -5
didn't understand, Dan... which statment are you referring to??? About being whether he was aware or not at the time of the felony. Since it is the death penalty. It must be first degree murder he is in for.
|
|
|
Post by rockstars on Jun 12, 2006 21:22:46 GMT -5
Was he on those meds when he committed the crime? I haven't read the article...
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Off Green [HollywooD!] on Jun 12, 2006 21:23:57 GMT -5
This reminds me of Albert Fish.. And one of the most famous quotes ever.. "We believed he was insane, but we thought he deserved to die anyway." Good job Mr. Jury member.
|
|
|
Post by Dan the G-Man on Jun 13, 2006 0:26:07 GMT -5
There is a saying in the south. "He just needed killing", or "He hust need to be killed" something like that. It was actually used many times in court to as a reason for justofiable homicide. A few good old boys actually got off with it too.
|
|
|
Post by FallenAngel on Jun 13, 2006 3:32:26 GMT -5
Mmm realy they want force him to get drugs for kill him ? Bloody Hell is orrible
I'm against ..isn't penalty is a murder,to me if you kill someone who killed you are at the same level a muder
FallenAngel
|
|
|
Post by Dan the G-Man on Jun 13, 2006 10:32:29 GMT -5
it's been around for a thousand years, maybe more the good old eye for an eye
|
|
|
Post by honeybee on Jun 13, 2006 12:29:22 GMT -5
didn't understand, Dan... which statment are you referring to??? About being whether he was aware or not at the time of the felony. Since it is the death penalty. It must be first degree murder he is in for. I read the article again and apparently he his was suffering from schizophrenia when he committed the felony, so, he didn’t have discernment. As he’s an inmate, he should not be sentenced to death penalty; what he needs is medical care.
|
|
|
Post by dyskrasia on Jun 13, 2006 22:35:40 GMT -5
Yeah, medical care should do fine IMO. While on the subject of the death penalty, I think it does worse (or better?) to make perps suffer in prison as someone's little bitch (f they're able mentally functional/stable) rather than kill them off all easy-like.
|
|
|
Post by honeybee on Jun 14, 2006 14:08:24 GMT -5
it might seem a little contradictory what I'm gonna say - I do not support the old "eye for an eye" police, but I think when a men commits a sexual crime against a woman or even a men, he really deserves to be, as you said, "someone's little bitch" for the rest of time he stays in prison. Indeed, that's what happened in real world, rapists, children murders, etc they REALLY suffer when they go to prison.
|
|
|
Post by bdcold on Jun 15, 2006 10:46:56 GMT -5
The death penalty is morally wrong and we should not allow such government sanctioned murder. If it is wrong to kill, why do we say it is proper for our government to do it? Whatever happened to "two wrongs don't make a right"?
Incarceration at hard labor for life without parole is much more harsh and is an appropriate punishment for the most heinous of crimes. Back in Louisisana the state prison at Angola is infamous for its harsh conditions and is a perfect place for those who commit murder in the state.
We do not have to degrade the value of life by allowing murder in our names in order to protect ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by smilerockstar on Jun 15, 2006 20:00:57 GMT -5
Gandhi (spelling?) said that if everyone took an eye for an eye the whole world would be blind. Death penalty is a bit archaic now, doncha think?
|
|
|
Post by honeybee on Jun 16, 2006 19:23:44 GMT -5
It is archaic and when people give up part of their freedom in order to have a united State, I don't think anyone has given such power to State - to kill if you do something wrong.
There's a good movie - "Dancer in the dark" with Bjork (she won best actress in Cannes Festival) (Lar von Trier) the movie portraits a lot of things, and one of them is death penalty.
|
|