Thank you for taking part in a rather civil debate.

Best luck on your future endeavors and may you continue to pursue the ideals you desire 

everyone here knows that a technicality doesn't mean innocence. a technicality means just that.

I am relieved to know that things are starting to turn around for you 

How do you know, that they like to kill? A murderer of 30 has spent all his life beforehand without a murder. Who tells you, that he will do it again? Certain folks do I know that too, but why cannot they be kept away from society for good?

I imagine that those that do it while serving a life sentence in a state without the death penalty, wouldn't be doing it to in an attempt to get the death penalty, since there is none. Why else would they kill knowing full well that getting a second life without parole sentence is all they can get for it?

Life in prison without parole is flawed, especially when prisons get overcrowded. Contrary to what the name implies, life in prison without parole does not guarantee an inmate to remain locked up until they die. When prisons get overcrowded, there is a possibility of a murderer who is serving life to get released back onto the streets. I have no problem with life in prison without parole being a punishment for murder, but there is no reason that the death penalty shouldn't be a punishment as well

Also I think that life without possibility of parole is worse than the death peanlty, Therefore I would go on killing til I would receive a swift penalty rather than to die of old age in prison if I were a real killer.

For every inmate that believes the death penalty is worse than life in prison without parole, there are 10 who have taken plea deals to get life in prison without parole instead of the death penalty. I can tell you why they did that, and it's not because they believed they deserved the more severe penalty, it's because they didn't want to face the highest consequence for their actions.

If the death penalty was easier than life without parole, why do lawyers try to get their clients behind bars for life, instead of the death penalty? They're suppose to do what's in their client's best interest, so going by the logic of life being worse than death, shouldn't the lawyers be aiming to get their client on death row instead of going to prison for the rest of their life?

And someone who has the death penalty already, he has nothing to lose. Why do folks on death row not go on killing, at least most of them, but instead try to better themselves (Quite a few do) and help others? They have nothing to loose and if the like killing as much as you say, why do the not continue?

They don't try to better themselves, they try to make it seem that way. You can't trust a murderer and take his word for it. There's almost always an ulterior motive for them to "better themselves". They're doing it for themselves. I guarantee you that if let back out on the street, most would kill again.

As for why death row inmates don't kill other inmates, they're always separated from other death row inmates. They are locked up in an individual cell and have no contact with other inmates. That and they wouldn't want to do anything to hurt their chances of winning their appeals.

same as lifetimers mostly stay with the hope to get free sometime. Thats what I think.

You just answered why life in prison is not the worst penalty to face....

And I also believe is that having the death penalty makes some prisoners ready to kill to escape their jail sentence by forcing the prosecution to kill them.

and having life in prison without parole as the maximum punishment will result in murderers sentenced to life without parole kill with no punishment. There's nothing to lose so they may as well try to escape and if it means a guard gets killed in the process, then what?

People in death row simply do not appeal anymore, so you might be right.

What are you talking about? There's tons of inmates that are filing appeals and wasting the court's time. If that was the case, our execution calendar would be full and every day at least 5 people would be executed. I have no idea where you got those figures from.

As I said beforehand on death row there are not more killings than in the rest of prison. So I rather think, it is high security measures really which prevent more killings.

You can only do so much, but in the end it is not going to 100% repel a murderer from killing on the inside. It will never work. Execution is the only way to 100% guarantee a murderer to never kill again, and yes I realize that sentencing every murderer to death is not realistic. We're lucky the death penalty even exists in the first place. We can at least reserve the death penalty for the worst of the worst.

Some murders spend 10 years or so on death row without evenh breaking the rules and regulations. By than they should have had plenty of opportunity to kill.

and what is going on while they spend their 10 years on death row? Their appeals. That is why they do not break the rules and regulations. It would not look good on appeal if they did so.

Murdering something "humanely" does it make it better?

It doesn't make it "better", but at the very least it lets the murderer die with more dignity than his victim, unfortunately. Sadly, the constitution eliminates cruel and unusual punishment, so a simple lethal injection  as all they can get. It's a lot easier than what they gave their victims and while that isn't even, it's as fair as one can get.

Shooting someone can be very swift and people may die without having to experience much pain.

Don't worry, the state isn't raping the murderer, holding them for ransom, burning down their house, robbing them etc. They put the inmate down in the most humane way possible just so they can keep society safe.

Nevertheless it is murder takening a life, no matter how "humane" the murder is. Now I do not want the state do do the same as a murderer

Murder is by definition:

when a person, of sound memory and discretion, unlawfully kills any reasonable creature in being and under the king's peace, with malice aforethought, either express or implied.

You'll notice the word "unlawful". I don't see states like Massachusetts, Iowa, Michigan etc taking murderers to a discrete location and killing them and I certainly see the death penalty apart of Texas, Florida, New Hampshire etc's law. So no, it is indeed not murder.

The state should not take life.

Correction, the state should not have to take a life. But in order to 100% guarantee society is safe, some states implement the death penalty. I'm sure that once people stop unlawfully killing others, the death penalty no longer supported. People will have to stop murdering before that happens. Life is about give and take.

Thats true, I did not think about it that way. I only thought, that they must look at the DP as the punishment and must live through all the anguish, again and again, once appeals are on and nearly all death sentences are being appealled I guess.

The death penalty is not just thought of as punishment. The death penalty is also thought of as a deterrent and yes, I have proven that it is a deterrent because it would have prevented the poor woman from being murdered in Illinois if it existed.

That was a true bastard, but pretty stupid. For myself I would have tried to get away with it. I am a coward. Perhaps he wanted to be punished, but was a coward to die?

It's clear he knew that the death penalty was the worst punishment to face and since that was no longer an option, he probably didn't care what happened to him. Now he can live in a place and not have to worry about rent, utilities, etc. He doesn't care about his freedom, he just cared about his own life. He accomplished what he set out to do and his life apparently is complete in his mind.

We do not have the death penalty, but we have the white Ring, which helps victims and their relatives. I think thats a very good thing.

There's no reason you cannot have both. There's also no reason we cannot have both. They don't have to be mutually exclusive to each other.

I really do not want the death penalty in Germany. This would not solve any problem but create new bigger ones.

What problems would it cause exactly?

I do not think that the death penalty gives any real solution or even a closure for the victims family

Nothing will truly give anyone closure. I think the victim's family would be content with knowing that their loved one's murderer can't hurt another person again. Death can guarantee that, life without parole can't. And while I respect some MVS opinion that they would prefer the murderer to get life, I more so pity the murderer's potential future victims.

Thats true and thats a thing I do not like in Germany.

Would you rather a murderer get the death penalty or only get 15 years in prison so they have a chance to take another innocent life? Be honest.

Having someone executed would inevitably lead to the point, that I would feel sorry for the murderer and I do not want that.

The one way you can avoid feeling sorry for a murderer being executed is to think of the victim who was killed for no reason. The victim deserves the pity, not the murderer. The murderer put himself in the position he is in today and has no one but himself to blame. He had the the option to not murder his victim, but he decided to do it anyways. He deserves no sorrow, no pity and no special treatment.

Now as I did what you asked me to doo, JTiscool, could you be so kind and read about the information I gave you in the case of Debra Milke.

Sure, I will give it a look see next chance I get.

In the case of Milke, don't forget there is also evidence that is excluded from being shown to the jury, so while no evidence may point to her directly that was shown in court, there could be evidence that actually shows her guilt that wasn't allowed. Having your conviction overturned doesn't mean you are innocent.

JTiscool, imagine there being no death penalty what reasons would someone have to go on killing, when there is nothing to achieve from it?

Because they like to kill, because there's no punishment and no way to stop them when Life in prison without parole is the maximum you can get etc.

And so far I know, most folks in prison go on killing, until they receive the death penalty, because they want it. It gives them more importance. They even ask for it like Breivik, the norvegian killer. The Death penalty gives them the stage whereupon they act. Without it they would be without publicity which they seek.

I am 100% sure there are cases in states without the death penalty where a person who is serving life without parole killed again in prison or when escaping. The reason why we haven't heard of such cases nearly as much as those from a death penalty state is because there is no bigger penalty for them than Life in prison without parole in the aforementioned states. There is no reason to bring said perpetrators to trial because there is no additional penalty for them. 2 life sentences does the same job as 1.

t should be the role of the state to punish a crime and protect the society. But it should never do the same as the offender did. Like raping the rapist, killing the killer.

If the death penalty is the only means to truly protect society from crime and punish the offender, then logically speaking, the death penalty is a necessary evil (for the purposes of this debate, we will call it an "evil".

The state is not doing the same as the perpetrator. It isn't stabbing them, shooting them, setting them on fire, drowning them, etc. They put the inmates to death with the most humane ways possible. The death penalty is a necessity. It is the only sure fire way to guarantee that the offender doesn't offend again. I have never read such cases where an executed offended escaped the burial ground and killed again. I have heard such cases where a murderer escaped prison and murdered other people. Life in prison without parole does not guarantee the murderer won't kill again, the death penalty does.

And I also think, that the death penalty creates more victims for the reason that the processes and appeals are so long.
As the punishment is so harsh, there are more opportunities to appeal more time to be spent and more money than a normal process.
This means more anguish for the families of the victims and the money spend on killing a culprit should be rather spent on them, to help them stand the trial, to help them to cope with the loss of a loved one or finacially, when a family father or mother, who had earned the living has been killed. Those families need more and other help, than just to show them: Uh, UH whe killed the killer and you  where allowed to witness.

By bringing up finances and expenses, you are showing that the safety of society has a specific price tag. The safety of others is priceless.

The family of the victims will have to endure the continuing case of the murderer even if he/she is not sentenced to death. Don't forget that even if you are sentenced to life in prison without parole, you are still allowed to file appeal your sentences. Also, if you are eligible for parole, your victims will still have to endure the trauma of the case through parole hearings. Being sentenced to death or not still results in the family having anguish.

And on top I cannot see any sense as a deterrent, because vicious crimes exist and will exist, no matter whether there is a death penalty or not. Either the offenders think, they get away with it or where so high on drugs or Adrenaline, that they where uncapable of thinking straight or would do it anyway for pervert reasons, they are unable or not willing to stop.

I would like to bring your attention to this case

Illinois vs Dmitry Smirnov, 20, who tracked his girlfriend with GPS and shot her to death in Illinois soon after learning that the death penalty was abolished.

http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2011/04/canadian-commits-murder-in-illinois-after-researching-is-abolition-of-death-penalty.html

He killed her right after learning the state of Illinois did not have the death penalty.

This crime story from Illinois, headlined "Woman slain in Oak Brook after being tracked by GPS," reports on a Canadian murderer who claims to have been emboldened by Illinois' abolition of the death penalty. Here are the details:

A man from British Columbia, Canada is accused of fatally shooting his former girlfriend in the parking lot of an Oak Brook corporate park after tracking her with a GPS device glued to her car -- and after researching Illinois law on the death penalty, prosecutors said today.

Dmitry Smirnov, 20, of Surrey, turned himself in to police not long after he repeatedly shot Jitka Vesel, 36, of Westmont at the Windsor Office Park at 125 Windsor Drive in the western suburb Wednesday night, authorities said.

During a court hearing, where he was denied bail, prosecutors said Smirnov had moved to the Chicago area in 2008 after meeting Vesel through an online dating service. But Vesel eventually returned to her former boyfriend and Smirnov returned to Canada....

Two weeks ago, he drove to the area from Canada, buying a 40-caliber handgun and ammunition in Seattle on his way to the Chicago area, Berlin said. He arrived in the area April 8 or 9, and tracked down Vesel’s address through the Internet, Berlin said. Smirnov lived in his car for four days after returning to the area, Berlin said.

Smirnov attached a GPS device to her car and tracked her for several days, Berlin said. On Wednesday night, he approached her in the parking lot and began shooting. As he was reloading, she threw coffee on him and fell to the ground. He fired more shots, Berlin said. Berlin said Vesel was shot numerous times in the head and body and died at the scene....

Smirnov later provided a videotaped confession. Berlin said Smirnov went through with his plan after researching to see if Illinois had the death penalty. Just weeks ago, Gov. Pat Quinn signed legislation banning the death penalty in the state.

Smirnov later provided a videotaped confession. Berlin said Smirnov went through with his plan after researching to see if Illinois had the death penalty.

This implies he wouldn't have killed her in Illinois if the death penalty was an option for sentencing.

the outcome isn't going to be how we judge their innocence/guilt. Look at Casey Anthony. she's guilty, but the jury let her off. the jury doesn't always get it right, even you acknowledged that when you advocated about milke's assumed innocence.

technicalities don't mean innocence. please don't forget that.

we did consider it, but all because it is being considered, doesn't mean it will be agreed to.

there is no evidence of innocence that outweighs the circumstancial evidence of guilt. we can't take milke,s word as evidence because it would be natural for someone not wanting to be punished for their wrong doing. 

all because the detective had a history of shady interrogating doesn't mean Milke is innocent. all because no one was there to witness the detective going by the book, doesn't mean he didn't. if a tree in the forest falls and no one is around to hear it, did it make a sound?

if milke wasn't on death row, would you have still debated her innocence? why not read up on some cases in states without the death penalty whom claim they're innocent and advocate for their inocence?

What the Süddeutsche Zeitung wrote (a very renown newspaper in Germany):

Nope. Not biased in the slightest.....

Not a problem. I have the perfect thread for you to dispute my points

http://off2dr.com/smf/index.php?topic=10734.msg76176#msg76176

This thread is not meant to insult you so please do not misunderstand it 

So what happens with that case involving the murdered CO? Is there any point in bringing it to trial since it will just result in another life sentence? 2 Life sentences accomplish the same exact thing as 1 life sentence....

What is it with all the blacks thinking they should be granted a "Get out of Jail Free" card just because of the color of their skin?

Isn't that being racist?

Not to them. Them and their double standards.

I thought they would pay him.  You dont think $0.02 is being excessive???

Are you kidding me? That's more of a steal than selling a jolly rancher for $10. She's not even close to being worth the gum on the bottom of a shoe 

He could always pimp out mamma'stalking for the pocket change...

How is he going to do that when he would need to pay people to deal with her? 

Quote from: JTiscool on March 10, 2013, 04:08:03 PM

Quote from: time2prtee on March 10, 2013, 11:31:26 AM

Hank needs a date already!

Ask the hags at the PTO. I'm sure they'd line up to get a piece of him 

Thanks for the chuckle LOL!

Glad to see I could bring a smile

Hank needs a date already!

Ask the hags at the PTO. I'm sure they'd line up to get a piece of him