what is the purpose of the death penalty? is it a tool for the deterrance of other heinous crimes similar to the Aparece murder? if so, it's not working at all. these type of crimes are going to be happen whether there is a death penalty or not. people would like to think it deters more acts of crime, but rather, it's just a tool of vengeance for the family members who have suffered.
Why do you only speak Fortune Cookie? War did stop Germany from taking over all of Europe thereby creating more death and destruction greater than what would've happened had we not intervened. Peace has to be a two way street. You seem to care more about the criminals than the victims. And what, praytell, is another way to prevent these crimes from ocurring? Telling them to stop? Asking them to be peaceful? Keeping them alive in prison where the family of the victim helps to pay for them to stay alive?
Are murderers normal people or animals? I still believe criminals retain their qualities of being human. Forcing an end to the possibility of atonement makes the executioner just as barbaric. If the authority of the executioner of given by the public, isn't that still the spirit personal vengence? When most people have their mind set on something, they'll do it despite the consequences. People still murder cops. Rapes still happen. And if the person's rich or lucky, he'll get a great lawyer to change the punishment. As for the state, criminals maintain basic rights. Ideally, a government that upholds life for its worst people could be trusted to maintain rights for the rest. Then again, when our government and society condones barbarous acts like abortion, it's not as clear cut....
Using World War II is a terrible analogy. The war prevented Hitler from conquering Europe. It stopped him while he was still in the process… If these morons had been killed while in the process of murdering than it would be similar to the war.
It's not a terrible analogy. These guys would have committed more crimes. Therefore, I feel it's applicable. It may even qualify as being "in the process" or murdering someone.
Well, I hope even if they are convicted and get the death penalty that some of our tax dollars are spent to keep an eye on them for the rest of their lives until the sentence is carried out. It is real easy to say execution is the wrong way to go, but imagine if it was your sister involved, or a close friend. None of us can even fathom what that family is going through for this senseless murder. Though it wasn't my sister, when I was a kid a close friend of the family was murdered by an intruder/serial killer. The man was later put to death... though if the same crime had happened a couple of decades later, he wouldn't have been eligible for the death penalty since he was 17 at the time of the murders. From what I could see of the rest of the woman's family, the death penalty brought them no additional closure. As a matter of fact, the sheer number of appeals seemed to make it worse for them, having to relive the crime and face the killer time and again over the seven years between the crime and the death sentence being carried out (and that was actually a relatively quick execution with fewer appeals than many others). I don't know if it would've been any better had the murder just been sentenced to prison and went away (though likely not since, at the time, he would've been eligible for parole at some point. Given the time period, probably within 20 years or so). It's always going to be a tough call. Just the nature of what it is.
I am shocked at the ages no one older than 22. Where were the parents? I am not saying it's the parents fault either because I believe you are responsible for your own actions but everybody needs guidance.
Laws have to be enforced, otherwise, it demonstrate that our justice system is unwilling to enforce justice. If the justice system shows itself to be weak, you better believe that criminals will take advantage of that fact. It's unfortunate that capital punishment is the maximum sentence that our state can give out. I believe that they fully deserve to be tortured (e.g. quartering, breaking the wheel or any medieval torturing techniques) before executed.
Can't say I disagree. Maybe these people that think about killing innocent people purposely via a gun or knife would think twice if they knew they would get their balls cut off before they were executed. Yeah, that's sounds cruel, but just executing them doesn't involve enough suffering.
Halfbreed, that "they" have confessed is pretty general and vague. Not all 5 of them pulled the trigger. Even if they all knew about it doesn't mean they were all party to it. In the article's description of two of the murders, it sounds like most of the group were not even immediately present as the victims were led off into the woods a ways. That all 5 are guilty of something seems evident, but they aren't necessarily guilty of a capital offense. That they confessed may be sufficient for you to prescribe death, but it isn't enough for the American judicial system. Which is a good thing. Who did what? What do those specific actions deserve? What if instead you said the purpose of the death penalty was to incapacitate the law breakers? What if the purpose is to serve them justice for the wrongs they've committed?
Murderers are animals. Sex predators are animals too. IMO intentionally taking someone's life and/or violating him/her sexually deserves maximum punishment. I think the DP deters law abiding citizens but any punishment deters law abiding citizens. What deters the criminal element? Nothing? It's too bad cause life in prison without parole is too soft. To think a murderer gets family visitation (and conjugal visits among other privileges -- lets forget the right to life for a second) for the rest of his life while the victim's family mourns is unbelievable.
No, it's not vague. They have admitted to taking part in the carjacking and eventual murder of 4 people. Whether or not you pull the trigger is not relevant.
Of course it is. Consider this murder: From that small vignette, it sounds like there are only 2 of the 5 were at all associated with this murder. And look at this one: Ervin was present for the carjacking, but not present for the murders. While she may be guilty of something, I don't see how you give her murder 1 for those two, unless she ordered it or paid for it or something.
In every case, a car containing the 5 was present at the seen with Ervin being the driver. She knew what was going to happen because it had happened before and did nothing to prevent it. That small vignette only says that two people attacked the man. If anyone else was present or complicit in any part of the crime, I'd say they're just as guilty.
And, if you were on the jury, your opinion might matter. But, you wouldn't be on the jury because you've already made up your mind before hearing the case.
That's great. I was pretty sure the reason I won't be on the jury is because I haven't been summoned. Thanks for that lesson. As it is, my opinion may not matter to you. Frankly, I don't care if it does.
Oh, I never said that. I simply meant that the justice system is going to use different criteria to determine whether capital punishment will be used. Your opinion does matter to me; I would like for you to embrace the wisdom of affording a fair trial to even the obviously guilty. And, I know the thread is dead now, but for some reason I just can't let you post last.
