This is one of those cases that I believe in the death penality

[jorno67]

This was a horrible crime and they were caught red handed.

A judge in New Haven sentenced a 31-year-old man to death Friday for his role in a deadly home invasion that killed a woman and her two daughters in 2007.

Jurors convicted Joshua Komisarjevsky in October on six capital felony charges. The 12-member jury had recommended death by lethal injection on each of the counts.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/27/justice/connecticut-home-invasion-sentencing/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

[mike_c]

1. I don't....

The death penalty is state sponsored murder. It's ALWAYS wrong.

[jorno67]

3. Then I am wrong...

And in this case I will stay wrong.

[Whisp]

70. I too am wrong sometimes.

and have come to accept it. I suppose some people think they are right all the time tho. Can't do much about that.

[MicaelS]

66. The death penalty is NOT state sponsored murder

Murder is unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.

Each state decides what is defined as unlawful killing and what is not. Therefore, if the state defines execution as lawful killing, that is within the boundaries of that state's laws, it cannot be murder.

[rustydog]

113. There are too many innocent people on death row

Until you can be a thousand percent sure the person murdered another, we as a civilized nation cannot be allowed to put to death innocent people.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

114. EVERY district atty needs to do what the one in Dallas did.

And thank (insert your dear and fluffy Lord here) for the Innocence Project.

[hifiguy]

2. This guy would suffer a lot more

being locked up in solitary for life if that's your goal.

The only place where the death penalty is justified is for war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity, IMO. Nuremberg being an excellent example.

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. It's also cheaper to lock him up for life

than to kill him.

[RebelOne]

43. Not cheaper for the taxpayers.

Who knows how long he will live, and in the meantime, taxpayers have to food the bill to keep him alive.

[nobodyspecial]

51. This has been proven.

It costs more because the state has to spend a lot more money in prosecuting and trying these cases as well as allowing for sufficient appeals. I guess we could cut these costs, but despite these rigorous procedures, innocent men already have been put on death row. Some have finally been released, but who knows how many innocent people already have been killed.

[ZombieHorde]

96. Tax payers spend more on executions than life in prison.

The DP process is extremely expensive.

[proud2BlibKansan]

107. Yes it is cheaper due to legal costs attached to appeals of the death penalty

[Snake Alchemist]

10. Wouldn't that depend on which he fears more? nt

[Quantess]

4. Why not lock him up the rest of his natural life?

Not that I really care so much about sparing this slimeball's life, but what difference does it make, really? The government should not be in the business of executing prisoners in my opinion. Just let him rot in prison.
What is need to execute someone about?

[jorno67]

13. I don't know...

I am normally against the DP. But for some reason this time I'm fine with it. I actually want it. I don't know why but this case has gotten to me. Read what happened:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/tied_down_and_set_on_fire_KCG7y9EgojqMbSa4C4tCWL

[Quantess]

41. Wow, that's nauseating.

As I said, I don't care either way what his sentence will be, for his sake.
But if revenge or punishment is the goal, I'm not sure why death is necessarily worse than life in prison.

I don't know, either, but if protecting the public is the goal, then it wouldn't make much difference if he were locked up for life, or put to death. It may be a good thing for him to sit there and stew in his own juices and contemplate over what he did. Dying would be getting out easy, in a way. Just my opinion. I am also sort of ambivalent in cases like these.

[Aerows]

52. He'll stew in his own juices

For several years with a death sentence hanging over his head until he is executed. That seems fair to me, considering the damage he did to this family.

I'm pretty ambivalent about what happens to scumbags like these, too, but these scumbags really deserve what they got, imho.

[Booster]

62. I totally agree. I, too, am normally against the DP, but with this case and that of little

Samantha Runion, I would consider injecting the assholes myself. Society is better off without these animals.

[CTyankee]

6. Dr. Pettit can no longer practice medicine. Some good news is that he is engaged to be

married. I wish him the best. The poor man has to take sleeping pills and is not well enough to go back to endocrinology. His professional career is probably over forever. I hope he can get some peace and at least a little happiness in his future marriage. The woman who is marrying him must know the burden of pain that her husband to be must be bearing.

[Corgigal]

8. I didn't know Dr.Pettit is engaged

Wonderful news. Whatever helps with the pain.

I also have no problem with the death penalty for the monster who entered a private home because he saw a young girl at the grocery store and gave all the ladies in the house the death penalty.

[CTyankee]

80. The girls' mother was strangled first. The older girl did get free of the rope binding her to the

bed but only made it to the landing at the top of the stairs before collapsing from smoke inhalation. The terror those girls and their agony is enough to make you want to strangle these two men with your bare hands!

The older girl had been accepted into Dartmouth and would have entered as a freshman there in the fall of 07.

[nobodyspecial]

7. Either you support it or not

You don't get to arbitrarily pick in which cases the death penalty should be applied.


You do not seek justice. It's blood-thirsty revenge. How does killing him make the world better or change anything?

[Snake Alchemist]

11. Is the goal to make the world better? nt

[nobodyspecial]

14. What is the goal in killing people?

You tell me.

[Snake Alchemist]

15. I was under the impression it was punishment. nt

[Hugabear]

19. Why not just lock him up for the rest of his life?

That would also be punishment, and wouldn't involve the state in taking someone's life.

[Snake Alchemist]

20. I always thought that was a lot more cruel. nt

[NoGOPZone]

28. So you feel an extended false imprisonment would be a more serious

crime than murder?

[Snake Alchemist]

32. Are you saying this person would be falsely imprisoned? nt

[NoGOPZone]

38. No. An Example

I'm angry at my neighbor. Instead of killing him, I lock him in my cellar for the rest of his life. Would this false imprisoment, since I have no legal right to keep him, be a more cruel act than murdering him?

[Snake Alchemist]

40. It would be to me.

I would rather leave this mortal coil than be enclosed my whole life.

[NoGOPZone]

46. I feel the opposite but respect your consistency. Most people I pose

that question to have difficulty answering. Finding out how the legal system would handle a case of false imprisonment until death would be interesting.

[immoderate]

21. Punishment is application of negative stimulus. This is vengeance.

And it is understandable on an individual level. We have a society to mitigate those emotional responses.

--imm

[Snake Alchemist]

25. Does the family deserve vengeance? nt

[Hugabear]

29. Since when is our justice system based upon vengeance?

Maybe we could go back to the old days and allow families to carry out 'vengeance killings'

[Snake Alchemist]

30. That was not what I asked. I asked if you thought the family deserved vengeance.

If this had played out differently and the father had come home during the horrendous act and managed to kill the convicted, would that be okay with you?

[Hugabear]

34. Totally different situation

If the father had come home during the act, and managed to kill the intruder - that would not be considered "vengeance" - it would be protecting his family.

Vengeance would be if the father waited outside the courthouse with a sniper rifle, and took out the accused himself.

[Snake Alchemist]

37. What if he killed him right after he committed the murders?

He opens the door, sees the aftermath and proceeds to kill the convicted.

[nobodyspecial]

48. It would be justifiable

because he has reasonable expectations that he would be the next victim. He has the right to self-defense.

I don't get your point here, though. Once the criminal is caught, killing him is nothing more than premeditated murder -- no matter how many procedures and formalities you try to dress it up in.

[Snake Alchemist]

50. Even if the convicted began to run in the opposite direction and the husband chased/shot him?

So it's vengeance after they are apprehended by the authorities. Before that point is your window.

[Hugabear]

49. That would be up to a jury to decide

I'm sure that any halfway competent defense attorney could successfully argue for temporary insanity at that point. That's if the local prosecutor even bothered to press charges, which would be unlikely in the situation.

However, it's when it becomes premeditated killing that one crosses the line.

I'm done playing these "what-if" arguments with you now.

[Snake Alchemist]

53. My view is that if it was proven that the convicted committed the murders

Then the husband should not have to face a jury. I have extreme sympathy for the survivors though. Not as much for the convicted.

[nobodyspecial]

55. After I read the last one, I agree

There is no point in engaging in these circular arguments. I guess if you can't find a logical point to make, you can engage an opponent in an endless game of what if that has no bearing on the actual facts.

[JSnuffy]

99. It's entirely outside of our legal system...

... but it could be the singular good thing that the rapist/murder/arsonist could provide before he stops wasting oxygen.

[Adsos Letter]

18. is there any doubt that he did the crime?

I think the goal in executing this guy would be simple justice. Because he intentionally took these lives he forfeits any right to his own.

[Carolina]

102. to make sure they

never escape to unleash such horror on someone else as Ted Bundy did and then killed those girls at a sorority house in FL!

Too many victimized women going about their daily activities end up this way. The rat bastard who killed those 8 (or 9) nurses in Chicago decades ago, used to laugh about his acts in prsion during all those years our taxes paid for room, board and yes, medical care!

A recent horrific case here involved a man who stalked a complete stranger following a stop at a mini-mart. Forced her car off the road, then abducted, raped and beat her to death with a baseball bat. No doubt about him/his guilt. Fry his ass so he can't EVER do this to another woman.

[nobodyspecial]

36. And a society that kills its citizens is superior how?

Would you take part in his execution? How are you better than him?

[MicaelS]

68. I support it, and it is not revenge

It is punishment. It states that if you commit certain crimes we will deprive you of your life.

It makes the world a better place by preventing someone who has killed from killing again. Even if the person is locked up for life without parole, that does not mean they could not kill another prisoner, or a guard.

[blueamy66]

105. That is what I wrote for my Death Penalty 410 class.

Got an A.

[Ecumenist]

9. Me too, Jorno67...

Horrible and just plain inhuman.

[Kelvin Mace]

12. Hmmmm

OK, so he "deserves" the death penalty.

What about a president and his administration that willfully lie us into a war which kills 600,000+ civilians and runs secret prison were people are tortured?

If he gets the death penalty, why not Bush, Powell, Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al?

There is overwhelming evidence of their guilt, and millions of witnesses, yet they still walk the streets.

If their is to be a death penalty, then it must be applied to EVERYONE to be applied fairly.

Also, the man had no prior history of violence, but did have a history of mental illness. What kind of care did he received when he was in the mental hospital. Who let him out? Why?

These things are rarely cut and dried issues.

[Kelvin Mace]

74. Well, I did say

"et al" meaning that to include Congress.

Yes, A lot of people should be in prison, but the rich and powerful seldom face that fate.

I could argue convincingly that a number of politicians are mentally unstable, yet they are seldom viewed this way.

[immoderate]

16. Killing people is not the function of a society.

It's dysfunction. It becomes obvious from the amount of solemn ceremony we cover it in. Nothing is gained and it chews away our dignity. To not kill, in spite of our predatory nature, is true human achievement.

Just because people deserve to die, doesn't mean we should accommodate them.

--imm

[Snake Alchemist]

17. What are your alternate suggestions for punishment? nt

[Hugabear]

22. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

You're honestly asking if there is any alternative to the death penalty?

Maybe we should ask those states without the death penalty what they do. I dunno, maybe they just let them walk free.

[Snake Alchemist]

24. No. I am simply asking what you would rather see and why. nt

[Hugabear]

31. Keeping them in prison seems to work pretty well

Locking them away from society serves as both a punishment, as well as making sure they no longer pose a threat to society.

As for prison itself - yes, there do need to be substantial reforms. For example, if we decriminalized drug usage, that would instantly reduce the prison population.

[Snake Alchemist]

35. So locking them in an environment of rape and torture is preferable?

What would your ideal prison be like if you were designing one to house murderers?

[nobodyspecial]

39. Oh, so by killing them you are just "protecting" them

How many other prisoners should we kill -- you know, for their own good?

[Snake Alchemist]

42. No. I'm just trying to see if the goal is to maximize punishment.

So what about that prison design?

[immoderate]

60. Exactly what does "maximize punishment" mean?

Whatever I think of, you can think of something meaner? And then we can throw in some itching powder?

I think the goal here is to maximize effectiveness of how we deal with our worst miscreants, without sacrificing our own society and humanity.

It takes a toll on our civilization when we sanction killing. The millions of dollars spent on ritualizing executions, the legalities, the pomp and circumstance, does not mitigate the damage to society.

In short, not worth it.

--imm

[Hugabear]

47. What about bank robbers and other violent criminals?

Maybe we should just institute the death penalty for ALL major crimes. After all, prison is so much worse, they'd probably prefer to be executed.

Not sure where you're going with this right-wing meme. I've already said that we need substantial prison reform. Your response is a typical straw-man argument - I never said "locking them in an environment of rape and torture is preferable". If you're going to continue to push right-wing arguments with this type of arguments, enjoy your stay here.

[Snake Alchemist]

54. How is this RW or LW? Robbed items can be returned, lives not so much.

I keep asking for a description of the prison you would build to house murderers. What would their daily lives be like if you had the power to shape that?

[immoderate]

44. Assuming we're talking about homocidal maniacs...

Separate them from society, mainly for our protection. Some of these people do not have the psychological controls to be able to socialize normally. For some, prison life is the best they've experienced. Remember, rich people never get executed.

I have seen reports that most inmates in prison don't live longer than the appeals process for death penalties takes.

In cases where it is possible, I would allow "lifers" privileges commensurate with their response to "therapy."

--imm

[redqueen]

93. +1

[OhioChick]

26. I agree wholeheartedly n/t

[TheCowsCameHome]

33. Actually, he did get life....

.....it's just that his will end in July.

Good riddance.

[chrisa]

78. Unfortunately, with appeals, it will be years later.

Too bad they didn't just bring them both out back, use one bullet (and I feel sorry for that piece of metal), and call it a day.

[TheCowsCameHome]

87. Or they'll die of old age, whichever comes first.

The thought of them living off society for years just makes it worse.

[Iggo]

56. My objection to the death penalty isn't about those that deserve it.

It's about those that don't.

If we use it, we're going to get it wrong eventually.

That's not acceptable to me. Period.

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

76. I'm with Iggo on this one.

Getting it wrong once, is not acceptable to me either.

[redqueen]

94. +1

[GeorgeGist]

57. I think you crossed the line ...

between clever and stupid.

[Quantess]

71. Really, in what way? Curious.

[Bruce Wayne]

58. While I won't lose any sleep over this particular case...

it's important to understand that, with all the appeals and retrials and execution procedures and legal countermotions involved, it costs less for a state to lock a man up for life than it does to execute a convicted murderer.

Add to this the fact that a wealthy person convicted of murder has the financial ability to drag out the case even further into the future, thus increasing his chance of not being executed. So while I don't worry about murderers who've been put to death, there are two inescapable facts we must confront.

1 - There is a built-in income-based bias in the outcomes of which accused killers get put to death, and
2 - Undoubtedly, quite a large number of innocent men have been put to death in this country due to the built-in biases in the way we apply the death penalty.

Under these glaring facts, to support even the occasional use of the death penalty is to support the occasional homocide of an innocent man at the hands of our supposedly representative government.

Of course, there's also the whole "states shouldn't kill their own citizens" problem for those who feel so inclined to support the sanctity of human life (as well as those who recognize that human institutions are bound to commit flaws and judgmental errors from time to time. Thinking about a killer getting the ultimate (and well deserved punishment) warms my heart... but the awareness that we are all imperfect reminds me to let my sense of justice override my irrational hunger for revenge.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

59. What fraction of an innocent person are you willing to kill to get this guy?

There is no way to set the standard of proof high enough to avoid occasionally executing innocent people, except to never execute anyone.

Settle for locking him up.

[MineralMan]

61. You are either for capital punishment or you are not.

There are no shades of gray in that. None. If you believe that it is OK for even a single case, you are a proponent of it.

[Quantess]

73. What if you're sort of ambivalent in cases like this?

Like I am. I don't think the DP is necessarily the best sentence, but I wouldn't be too upset if that were the sentence. Is that a shade of dark grey or is it a shade of light gray?

[MineralMan]

77. Again, you're either for or against the death penalty.

There's no middle ground. If you approve of any execution, then you're for the death penalty.

[Quantess]

81. If you say so. Sounds like that means I'm for the DP,

even though I'm generally opposed, but in this case I'm not really bent out of shape either way. A life sentence would be adequate, but if he ends up getting executed I don't really care, at all.

Hmm...okay. So I'm a death penalty proponent then. I had no idea until today. If that's how you choose to define it, fine with me.

But you do understand that if I label myself as pro-death-penalty, it will only confuse people.

[obamanut2012]

98. Then you are for the P

Justice and the law should be removed from emotions. I am anti DP BECAUSE of cases like this, because they are scum.

[Quantess]

100. I'm not emotional about it at all, though.

In a case where the crime is horrific AND there is no doubt the defendant is guilty, I'm ambivalent. A life sentence is always sufficient in my opinion, but the death penalty works, too. In a few cases the death penalty is not wrong, in my opinion.

It doesn't matter to me how I am labeled. If you want to call me pro death penalty that's just fine with me, but other people will misunderstand that definition.

It's very hard to argue that anything is ever black and white, with no shades of gray. This is no exception.

[Jennicut]

63. It is hard for me to be unbiased as I grew up in Cheshire and lived down the street from where

these murders took place. I have direct knowledge that Komisarjevsky was really troubled as a teen. He stalked the sister of a girl I went to high school with. His own mother was ultra religious and perhaps never got him the helped he needed. However, he also raped a little girl and helped kill her, her older sister and mother. And scared the hell out of a lot of people I know in my hometown. I never go back to the Stop and Shop where they scoped the family out. It's too....creepy. I have driven by where the house once was and all that is left is a memorial with a garden. I used to hang out in that neighborhood as a kid and teenager. Lots of conflicting emotions but my heart also aches for Mr. Petit. For him, this was closure.

[Kelvin Mace]

64. One other observation....

Why the Hell did it take the police a half hour to get their shit together? Mrs. Petit told the bank teller what was going on, who then called 911. The teller reported the victim being picked up the robber in REAL time. So the police knew where the victim's name and where she lived, knew she and her family were being held by violence, yet the police still took a half hour to reach the scene of the crime?

I quote from the [iNew York Daily News]

"If you don't want to defend your family, then take your chances with the criminal while police sit outside and follow protocol," he continued, referring to the fact that law enforcement arrived on the scene and were roping off the area outside the home while the two assailants were still inside committing the horrific murders.

None of this excuses what these men did, but it seems to me that an incompetent police force didn't help.

[jorno67]

65. +1

The Police fucked this up BIG time.

[Jennicut]

69. Cheshire police. No one there has ever dealt with anything.

Ever. Maybe when a kid in my high school accidently shot himself to death in the 90's with his brother's gun. Other then that...
They break up high school parties, hand out speeding tickets. That sort of thing. Not prepared at all. It has been a joke there for years.

[Kelvin Mace]

72. Being improperly trained is not an excuse

The threat of violence is always present in society, and had the police not been complacent in the matter of training, these people might still be alive.

It would be my hope that the police are remedying that situation.

[Jennicut]

75. No, it is not.

They were not prepared but I was not surprised. I also hope they do have better training. Police in many small towns are not used to dealing with this but home invasions are becoming more and more common.

[cliffordu]

67. I say genpop, for as long as it takes.

That is, general population in a maximum security prison.


Let the killahs take care of one of their own.

Kill a kid and god help your soul when you get to the joint.

[white_wolf]

82. The Death Penalty should be abolished.

This guy is clearly guilty, but there are far too many cases where mistakes are made and innocent people are murdered by the state. Even in cases like this, I oppose the death penalty. No state should murder its own citizens. We are the only country in the industrialized world that continues this barbaric practice.

[renie408]

83. This is why I love the DU. It always makes me think. I can see both sides of the arguments...

...being carried out above. On the one hand, this guy is a sick fuck and the world really isn't going to be any worse off if he is put to death.He is sucking up perfectly good oxygen that could be put to far better uses. On the other, either the death penalty is wrong on its face or it is not and I tend to be very cautious about the death penalty. This whole discussion opens up so many others:

If you believe that killing (including the death penalty) is ALWAYS wrong, are you pro-choice?

For its own good, society should get rid of the death penalty. We would be a better society without it. But sometimes a little vengeance (and yeah, that is EXACTLY what this would be) is what some people need.

It would be a more cruel punishment to lock this guy up for life. Yeah, you know, you say that, but living things really like to be alive and will suffer through a shit ton to stay that way. I am not sure that the long, drawn out death penalty process with the final act isn't a much tougher punishment than life in prison.

If the mother and two girls he killed were my family or friends, I would want him dead. Knowing he was alive somewhere, even possibly enjoying ANYTHING would bother me. Maybe that means I am not sufficiently emotionally developed, but it is true. I understand the moral high ground in saying that the death penalty is ALWAYS wrong and that, as a society, we need to have some hard boundaries on things like this. But if they put this guy to death, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

[Quantess]

84. There definitely is room for ambivalence about the DP

Some people get really passionate about it, for or against. I don't think the death penalty is ever necessary, but OTOH, in some cases I feel... let's just say I would not be strongly opposed to the DP in some cases.

And I think ambivalence is a very common reaction.

[NYC Liberal]

85. I am against the death penalty period.

And yeah if people I loved were savagely murdered, I might end up wanting the death penalty for the murderer/s. But it wouldn't be right; it would be a gut response to a horrific event. And that's why we have a (theoretically) independent, neutral justice system to mete out punishments and don't allow victims or their loved ones to decide.

[MrSlayer]

86. Agreed.

Kill this guy right now. There is no doubt, no possibility there was anyone else responsible, it's open and shut. A rope is cheap, so is a single bullet or a hammer. Just toss this piece of trash in the dump with the rest of the garbage. Simple.

[RebelOne]

88. This killer of a 7-year-old girl deserved to die.

But he saved the state the cost of executing him. He hung himself, saving the taxpayers the cost of his upkeep.


www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/7-year-olds-killer-lied-polygraph-test/nHJQQ/








































www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/7-year-olds-killer-lied-polygraph-test/nHJQQ/

[fascisthunter]

97. oook

"kill em', hang em high! Yeeee-haaaaw!

[Stinky The Clown]

91. One death does not get undone by another. I am opposed to the the death penalty.

That is an unequivocal statement. I will not try to convince you to change your mind. I ask that you don't try to get me to discuss it. This is an issue that is more about emotion than logic. A debate about the matter is unwinnable, no matter which side you're on.

[jorno67]

101. I think this is where I am at with this...

I have been emotional charged about this case - most likely because of the kids. My oldest daughter was 11 when this happened. I am normally against the DP. I am so thankful the West Memphis 3 got released before Nichols was executed. The difference in the Conn. Home Evasion is that they caught them red handed and there is no doubt of there guilt.

I am not trying to sway you. And I'm not trying to have it both ways. I just feel different about this one and I don't see that changing. But again you're right it's the emotion that's doing it.

[Stinky The Clown]

110. I will argue anything, sometimes just for the sake of arguing . . . .

. . . . but not the death penalty. I can *absolutely* understand how you can be where you are. I have been there myself with other cases over my lifetime. I only relatively recently found myself exhausted at the internal inconsistency.

Perhaps a pure rationalization for my own benefit, but I have managed to convince myself that life without parole is worse than the death penalty.

In that both Sparkly and I are from Southern Connecticut, not far from where that happened, we were both quite invested in the crime and the outcome.

[ZombieHorde]

95. Why should we spend the extra resources on a murderer?

What do we get out of it?

[Hugabear]

104. How many innocent people are you willing to put to death, in order to kill the truly guilty?

We all know there have been cases where someone has been wrongly convicted of murder. Sometimes evidence eventually surfaces to exonerate them, sometimes not.

How many of those innocent people are you willing to put to death, if it means that we don't waste extra resources on a murderer?

If we kill only 1 innocent person, is that an acceptable price to pay? How about 5 innocent people? How about a dozen? How about a hundred? How many is acceptable?

[ZombieHorde]

111. I am willing to sacrifice every living creature on Earth to make sure we kill the right one.

Just kidding. I was arguing against the DP, so your rebuttal doesn't make much sense to me.

The DP costs more than life in prison, so why spend the extra resources on a murderer?

[Hugabear]

115. Apologies

Sorry, misunderstood your post

[ZombieHorde]

116. Happens all the time. No worries. nt

[krawhitham]

103. Never could understand the death penalty, If they are dead their suffering has stopped

Life in prison seems like a worse fate

[Major Nikon]

106. Nobody "deserves" the death penalty

There is no ethical argument for saying someone "deserves" the death penalty in a society that has the means to lock someone up indefinitely. If life itself is so valuable that someone needs to be put to death for taking it, then life can't possibly be that valuable. So the ethical argument for the death penalty falls flat on it's face. Then when you consider the death penalty is counterproductive to society and even the victims themselves, the ethical argument becomes even more remote.

The only argument anyone can make for the death penalty is simply revenge, which is an argument based on emotion and emotion based arguments have no place in public policy.

[trumad]

108. +1

[surrealAmerican]

109. Resorting to execution is bad for humanity.

It has nothing to do with how horrible the crime was: it's how we, as a society, treat people. If we commit ourselves to treating all people humanely, perhaps, in a few generations, we will stop producing so many people capable of such monstrous acts.

[arely staircase]

112. he's as bad as that awful guy who burned his family to death in Texas - oh, wait. nt

[Firebrand Gary]

117. This is the story that Oprah did a story on in her last season.

I'm pretty sure, at least. How many horrible stories are out there like this? It has to be.

[jorno67]

118. So I just saw Paradise Lost 3 last night

And I am so glad the death penalty was not carried out on that case. I am truly conflicted here...I never want any innocent person to ever have to face the DP and I know the best way to do that given the corrupted nature of our legal system is to have no DP at all. BUT, I still want these bastards from the CT Home Invasion to leave this earth ASAP. But then a again they were caught red handed at the scene of the crime...

[meaculpa2011]

119. The state should not...

have the authority to decide who lives and who dies. I do not believe the circumstances of one murder make it more or less heinous than any other. Life without parole for ALL murderers.