Utah killer executed by firing squad

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Well, wouldn't it be wrong not to execute the person who rapes/kills SS33's niece, yet instead provide them with a roof over their head, clothing, toilet, and 3 meals a day while they live out the rest of their lives on the dime of the American taxpayer?

The most brutal and horrific crimes should be met with steepest of punishment. I'm not saying everyone convicted of murder should die, but the most hardcore, grisly, horrific killers/rapists have no place draining resources in our prison system. One way or another they're dying behind bars. Why not just get that shit over with? Considering what they've taken from their victims and their families, why should they be afforded the gift of time to read, relax, and "rehabilitate?"

Trust me, rapists don't get to relax in prison. If someone is a child molester, a rapist or someone who has committed an act of violence against a religious figure... They better ask for solitary confinement because every other prisoner will be itching to be the one to bash their brains in. And even in solitary, the gangs have a way of getting to them one way or another.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be executed, I'm actually in favor of the death penalty, but there's no way that people who commit heinous acts of violence just get to kick back and laugh at the system. They spend the rest of their days watching their back (no pun intended) in prison, hoping that they don't go the way of Jeffery Dahmer.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

Trust me, rapists don't get to relax in prison. If someone is a child molester, a rapist or someone who has committed an act of violence against a religious figure... They better ask for solitary confinement because every other prisoner will be itching to be the one to bash their brains in. And even in solitary, the gangs have a way of getting to them one way or another.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be executed, I'm actually in favor of the death penalty, but there's no way that people who commit heinous acts of violence just get to kick back and laugh at the system. They spend the rest of their days watching their back (no pun intended) in prison, hoping that they don't go the way of Jeffery Dahmer.

You didn't click on the link I provided did you?

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Well, wouldn't it be wrong not to execute the person who rapes/kills SS33's niece, yet instead provide them with a roof over their head, clothing, toilet, and 3 meals a day while they live out the rest of their lives on the dime of the American taxpayer?

The most brutal and horrific crimes should be met with steepest of punishment. I'm not saying everyone convicted of murder should die, but the most hardcore, grisly, horrific killers/rapists have no place draining resources in our prison system. One way or another they're dying behind bars. Why not just get that shit over with? Considering what they've taken from their victims and their families, why should they be afforded the gift of time to read, relax, and "rehabilitate?"

If you're in jail for life you're not going to "rehabilitate" for the most part. I suppose that eventually you could learn of how horrific the crime that you committed is and at the worst rot away.. at the best try to teach others based on your own wrongdoings.

Taxpayers also pay for executions, not just jailing, and in many cases the appeals and other court processes cost quite a bit. Three squares, a jumpsuit and slides, a lightbulb, and a toilet can be paid for quite awhile vs what it takes to pay the lawyer for a day, tying up the court, etc. I agree with some that it shouldn't be strictly an economical decision though.

A rape/murder or whatever the case is truly disgusting but so is taking the life of another human merely because you can. It would be nice if we were removed from that as far along as we've come as a civilization. I get the whole desire for revenge but what does that really change? It doesn't bring anybody back. The person isn't going to do it again if they're behind bars where they should be. Such a case as you described should have no parole mandatory.

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

You didn't click on the link I provided did you?

The link just reinforces the fact that the government is being run by a bunch of idiots. But it's been like that for some time now...

I don't even bother watching the news anymore. Wake me up with Palin is in the White House. Then I can at least laugh about that for 5 minutes, then go back to sleep until the next puppet is in.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

The link just reinforces the fact that the government is being run by a bunch of idiots. But it's been like that for some time now...

I don't even bother watching the news anymore. Wake me up with Palin is in the White House. Then I can at least laugh about that for 5 minutes, then go back to sleep until the next puppet is in.

Obiwan has taught you well. The Force is strong with you.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

The link just reinforces the fact that the government is being run by a bunch of idiots. But it's been like that for some time now...

I don't even bother watching the news anymore. Wake me up with Palin is in the White House. Then I can at least laugh about that for 5 minutes, then go back to sleep until the next puppet is in.

You might want to see a doctor if your that tired and sleep that much.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Yes, lives would have been saved if Hitler had been killed in 1923. But Hitler was not in prison for first-degree murder or some other death penalty offense. It is not the same thing.

I was joking.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I was joking.

Sorry. We're discussing a pretty serious issue so I didn't get the joke.

[CRedskinsRule]

I assume that when the death penalty is claimed to be costly, most of that is the costs associated with all the appeals. Doesn't the cost of life without parole appeals than have to be added in to the other side's argument. (I don't have any idea how the costs are broken down so I am asking). And Leslie Van Houten's case shows that even in life without parole cases, people are going to continue to keep the courts tied up with every possible appeal:

Leslie Van Houten - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Van Houten won a retrial in 1977 on the grounds that her counsel had not effectively represented her at the original trial. The lawyer at her first trial, Ronald Hughes, had disappeared during the trial and was later found dead. It was alleged that members of the Manson Family killed Hughes, but this has never been proven. Van Houten's second trial ended in a hung jury. She was tried a third time, during which she was free on bond. She was found guilty of felony robbery, murder, and conspiracy to commit murder. Once again, she was sentenced to life in prison.
Parole requests

With one exception, Van Houten has had an uneventful prison record. In 1981, she married an ex-convict who was subsequently found to be in possession of a uniform used by pregnant prison employees. Van Houten quickly divorced him and ended the association, stating that she had known nothing about any plans he might have had to break her out of prison.

In 2002, Van Houten filed an appeal of her 2000 parole rejection, which received a hearing in Superior Court. Superior Court Judge Bob Krug ordered a new parole hearing, Krug pointed out that at the 1977 retrial, Van Houten was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole, but having served eight years in prison, she was already eligible for parole by 1978. Krug's ruling for Van Houten was overturned on appeal in 2004.

Van Houten was denied parole on August 25, 2004. She was again denied parole on September 7, 2006, her 16th unsuccessful application. At this hearing she was informed she may apply again in one year as opposed to the usual two years. She was once again denied parole on August 30, 2007, but would be allowed to have a hearing again in two years. Van Houten's parole hearing scheduled for August 2009[7] was postponed until August 2010 after she requested a postponement due to current legal issues being pursued in court, wherein she is challenging her 2004 parole denial in federal court. Van Houten is scheduled to go before the parole board for a 19th time on July 6, 2010.

Van Houten remains housed in the California Institution for Women in Chino, along with Krenwinkel. Filmmaker John Waters has actively advocated for Van Houten's parole.

[RobH4413]

washingtonpost.com

[Dirtbag59]

How it happened:

Interesting how they give some of the firing squad members blanks to make it so they don't know who fired the fatal shot.

[Mechanix544]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

How it happened:

Interesting how they give some of the firing squad members blanks to make it so they don't know who fired the fatal shot.

I think thats how its been done for a while, at least in the countries that give a **** about the minds of the executioners.

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by Mechanix544

I think thats how its been done for a while, at least in the countries that give a **** about the minds of the executioners.

There was a great Tales from the Crypt episode that featured this practice back in the day. I know that show is kind of a random reference now but the episode was kind of famous; it had Kirk Douglas and his son (not Michael) and it was about a deserter in WWI. Good stuff.