My argument for the death penalty...

[prodigy]

Gardner executed
https://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_15324081

Ronnie Lee Gardner's quarter-century on death row ended at 12:20 today when a firing squad executed one of Utah's most notorious killers. His death signaled the end of a gut-wrenching saga for the families of the Utah men Gardner murdered or wounded and those who had hoped to spare the killer's life.

Barb Webb, daughter of Gardner victim Nick Kirk, sobbed when news of the execution came.

"I'm so relieved it's all over," she said, hugging her daughter, Mandi Hull. "I just hope my sister, who just passed away, and my father, and all of the other victims are waiting for his sorry ***. I hope they get to go down after him."

"I'm just glad it's over. I'm glad he's free," said Randy Gardner after his brother's death.

Other Gardner relatives whooped and cheered as they released 24 balloons decorated with messages.

"I love you, Ron!" some of them screamed, falling into each other's arms. Gardner's daughter, Brandie Gardner, put her hands to her face and sobbed.

For the nation, the 49-year-old Salt Laker's death by four bullets marked what could be the last execution of its kind in the country.

Utah is the only state still using a firing squad, and only four men on death row could still choose it -- the state switched to lethal injection in 2004.

Gardner's story went global when he told a judge how he preferred to become one of the 50-odd people executed in the United States each year: "I would like the firing squad, please."

Some hope the attention will highlight problems meting out capital punishment in Utah. Both death penalty opponents and believers decry the nearly 25 years Gardner spent between his conviction and execution for the April 1985 murder of Michael Burdell.

 

[Hopper]

Gardner executed
https://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_15324081

"Both death penalty opponents and believers decry the nearly 25 years Gardner spent between his conviction and execution for the April 1985 murder of Michael Burdell."

"I'm just glad it's over. I'm glad he's free," said Randy Gardner after his brother's death."

Kinda interestin, that. This part can't be true, though: "death penalty opponents... decry the nearly 25 years Gardner spent between his conviction and execution." Just ax Biley.

 

[Hopper]

"The last two executions in Utah have been of killers who halted their own death-row appeals. John Albert Taylor was executed in 1996 after eight years on death row, while Joseph Mitchell Parsons spent 11 years on death row before his 1999 execution. Unlike them, Gardner has fought to the bitter end."

I just don't git it. Why would anyone EVER cut their own appeal rights off, and choose to die rather than remain on death row as long as possible?

"Gardner's appellate attorneys have argued unsuccessfully over the years that if his jurors had known about the mitigating facts surrounding his troubled childhood -- poverty, drugs, violence and sex abuse -- they would have sentenced him to life in prison."

I guess they wuzzn't even tryin to claim he could be innocent, just that they didn't like his punishment. But, either way, it really doesn't make any difference, I spoze. Guilty or not, if he doesn't like his punishment, then why should he get it?

 

[billyshelby]

Ya know, Biley, at first I thought ya probly didn't read so good. But then, I seen I wuz probly wrong bout that. I figures ya can reads just fine.

Ya just don't understand so good, that's all.

I try, but it's so hard to breathe up there on high where you are. Like a magic fairy land of geniuses where it makes perfect sense that we have first graders across America stop learning their times tables to all watch a guy get killed with a chainsaw on television so they can learn not to kill. I can't wait until page 146 of this thread when you finally hint at a mystery wrapped in a puzzle that explains it perfectly.

 

[Jazzfannut83]

"

I just don't git it. Why would anyone EVER cut their own appeal rights off, and choose to die rather than remain on death row as long as possible?

Ain't, probably because life on death row wasn't really...life. After awhile he just wanted to be put out of his misery i'd imagine.

 

[Jazzfannut83]

Well, I went back and read a lot of this thread and it caught my attention a bit. I generally don't like to get involved in debates about this type of subject but i'm gonna throw my 2 cents in even though i'm sure some will tell me i'm way out in left field. I'm not at all opposed to the death penalty, first of all, I do believe the "punishment should fit the crime" as they say. I understand that the legal system isn't fool proof but I'd like to see some official stats as to how many people actually have been executed who were later found, without any reasonable doubt, to be INNOCENT. Remember, when a trial takes place, all it takes from a defense attorney is reasonable doubt to get even 1 juror to doubt the defendants guilt, which usually leads to a hung jury and a mistrial or the foreman keeps the jury together till they come to an amicable conclusion (i.e half think the person is guilty of 1st degree murder, a few think it wasn't pre-meditated, and some think it's merely manslaughter, so compromise on 2nd degree murder and it's a done deal). If not enough reasonable doubt can be presented during a trial to sway even ONE juror, how do you expect there to be enough 20 years later?

As far as what's humane and what isn't? Again, the punishment should fit the crime. You read these stories about people who not just kill but torture their victims (remember the BTK killer for example?), and worse yet, those who rape, torture, and then kill innocent children? Execute that monster the same way he/she tortured his/her victims.

 

[billyshelby]

Well, I went back and read a lot of this thread and it caught my attention a bit. I generally don't like to get involved in debates about this type of subject but i'm gonna throw my 2 cents in even though i'm sure some will tell me i'm way out in left field. I'm not at all opposed to the death penalty, first of all, I do believe the "punishment should fit the crime" as they say. I understand that the legal system isn't fool proof but I'd like to see some official stats as to how many people actually have been executed who were later found, without any reasonable doubt, to be INNOCENT. Remember, when a trial takes place, all it takes from a defense attorney is reasonable doubt to get even 1 juror to doubt the defendants guilt, which usually leads to a hung jury and a mistrial or the foreman keeps the jury together till they come to an amicable conclusion (i.e half think the person is guilty of 1st degree murder, a few think it wasn't pre-meditated, and some think it's merely manslaughter, so compromise on 2nd degree murder and it's a done deal). If not enough reasonable doubt can be presented during a trial to sway even ONE juror, how do you expect there to be enough 20 years later?

As far as what's humane and what isn't? Again, the punishment should fit the crime. You read these stories about people who not just kill but torture their victims (remember the BTK killer for example?), and worse yet, those who rape, torture, and then kill innocent children? Execute that monster the same way he/she tortured his/her victims.

12 man juries were fully convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that 138 people since 1973 were guilty of crimes for which they were sentenced to death, and later found innocent. As for the 'eye for an eye' stuff, I will never understand why life in prison is viewed as some rosy alternative, or what the actual gain is from putting anyone to death. Is justice somehow not served taking a person's freedom away forever? And even to the extent it isn't quite as 'just' as actually taking the guilty party's life away, there is no way to ensure that innocent people won't be killed. So the first priority is ensuring that. And it just so happens catastrophe is averted when you eliminate the death penalty. Then you try and make the criminal justice system work as well as it can to make sure innocent people aren't wrongly incarcerated.

Put yourself in the place of those 138 people, and the argument gets real clear, real fast. You'd get killed, and lots of people with your viewpoint would be deliriously happy because you got what you deserved. We lose nothing by abolishing the death penalty, and we have everything to gain.

 

[Scat]

"Gardner's appellate attorneys have argued unsuccessfully over the years that if his jurors had known about the mitigating facts surrounding his troubled childhood -- poverty, drugs, violence and sex abuse -- they would have sentenced him to life in prison."

I don't give a crap what sort of tortured childhood the asshat had. He commited a heinous crime that he knew was absolutely and completely wrong. Having a crappy childhood does not excuse crappy adult behaviour.

Is it OK for me to violate traffic laws because my mom used to beat me with a section of Hot-Wheels track??

 

[Jazzfannut83]

12 man juries were fully convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that 138 people since 1973 were guilty of crimes for which they were sentenced to death, and later found innocent. As for the 'eye for an eye' stuff, I will never understand why life in prison is viewed as some rosy alternative, or what the actual gain is from putting anyone to death. Is justice somehow not served taking a person's freedom away forever? And even to the extent it isn't quite as 'just' as actually taking the guilty party's life away, there is no way to ensure that innocent people won't be killed. So the first priority is ensuring that. And it just so happens catastrophe is averted when you eliminate the death penalty. Then you try and make the criminal justice system work as well as it can to make sure innocent people aren't wrongly incarcerated.

Put yourself in the place of those 138 people, and the argument gets real clear, real fast. You'd get killed, and lots of people with your viewpoint would be deliriously happy because you got what you deserved. We lose nothing by abolishing the death penalty, and we have everything to gain.

Billy, thanks for the statistic, because I honestly was not aware it was that high. At the same time, those people still are wrongly incarcarated, in lieu of being wrongly put to death (still unjust). Do you have a link to the story (stories), about those who were put to death and then later found innocent? Did they ever find who the actual killer(s), offenders were?

 

[Hopper]

Spoze you were out walking in your field one day, and ya seen a guy who looked exactly like Osama Bin Laden. So, right quick, ya slap some buckshot in your sawed-off and go up to the guy. Ya ax him: You Osama? He sez: Yes, I am the great Osama, I am lost and there are some infidels who are looking for me. Can you help me?

You can tell he aint armed, and ya got him, dead to rights, looking down the barrel of your sawed-off from 2 feet away. Ya got your cell phone on ya, and one simple phone call will get a ton of cops out there in no time flat. So, whaddaya do?

I mean, ya can squeeze off both barrels, or ya can make a phone call.

Is there really any question? The choice is obvious, aint it?

 

[One Brow]

How could you not have understood the whole illogical fallacy of aint's argument about accidents?

Actually, as I said, I think I did understand it, and expalined my response to it. My understanding of it may have differed from yours, but I am not convinced yours was superior.

 

[billyshelby]

Billy, thanks for the statistic, because I honestly was not aware it was that high. At the same time, those people still are wrongly incarcarated, in lieu of being wrongly put to death (still unjust). Do you have a link to the story (stories), about those who were put to death and then later found innocent? Did they ever find who the actual killer(s), offenders were?

aint was kind enough to give us this link: deathpenaltyinfo.org It covers the entire subject of the death penalty fairly well. You can also check out innocenceproject.org which has a heavier emphasis on DNA exoneration of wrongly convicted prisoners, but is still thorough in its own right.

Wrongful incarceration is a terrible thing, but unfortunately it's the only acceptable alternative to either killing people or making it impossible to convict. The criminal justice system can inherently never be perfect. It just doesn't have to be so imperfect as to include the death penalty.

 

[billyshelby]

Spoze you were out walking in your field one day, and ya seen a guy who looked exactly like Osama Bin Laden. So, right quick, ya slap some buckshot in your sawed-off and go up to the guy. Ya ax him: You Osama? He sez: Yes, I am the great Osama, I am lost and there are some infidels who are looking for me. Can you help me?

You can tell he aint armed, and ya got him, dead to rights, looking down the barrel of your sawed-off from 2 feet away. Ya got your cell phone on ya, and one simple phone call will get a ton of cops out there in no time flat. So, whaddaya do?

I mean, ya can squeeze off both barrels, or ya can make a phone call.

Is there really any question? The choice is obvious, aint it?

Yet another diversionary and pointless anecdote that is apropos of nothing in this thread. I mean, except to the geniuses trying to feed us chickens little scraps of feed so we might fly a foot off the ground.

 

[One Brow]

Billy, thanks for the statistic, because I honestly was not aware it was that high. At the same time, those people still are wrongly incarcarated, in lieu of being wrongly put to death (still unjust). Do you have a link to the story (stories), about those who were put to death and then later found innocent? Did they ever find who the actual killer(s), offenders were?

ONce the execution is performed, the appeals stop. The requests for new tests are denied as being moot. It would be almost impossible for a defense attorney to show a person is innocent after the execution.

 

[billyshelby]

Actually, as I said, I think I did understand it, and expalined my response to it. My understanding of it may have differed from yours, but I am not convinced yours was superior.

Then by all means continue discussing the minutia of prosecutorial misconduct and the varied meanings of the word 'can.'

 

[One Brow]

Then by all means continue discussing the minutia of prosecutorial misconduct and the varied meanings of the word 'can.'

If I so desire, I will. I was at least able to engage in a rational conversation with Hopper, to the point where for a post or two he didn't use his typical writing style. All I see from your posts is a lot of whining and mising the point.

 

[Hopper]

Wrongful incarceration is a terrible thing, but unfortunately it's the only acceptable alternative to either killing people or making it impossible to convict.

You have, for about the 15th time here, Biley, instructed us as to what is "acceptable" and, in that way, told us exactly what your personal values are.

Suppose I say that I think life in prison is a fate WORSE than death, and that it is totally unacceptable to EVER risk imposing it on an innocent man? Whaddaya gunna say to that? Lemme guess...probably sumthin like this here:

"You're an idiot."

 

[billyshelby]

ONce the execution is performed, the appeals stop. The requests for new tests are denied as being moot. It would be almost impossible for a defense attorney to show a person is innocent after the execution.

Which is very true. Although there are several case studies in which have made the attempt: https://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent

But as you said, it is essentially impossible to conclude once the switch is pulled and resources for continued investigation cease.

 

[billyshelby]

You have, for about the 15th time here, Biley, instructed us as to what is "acceptable" and, in that way, told us exactly what your personal values are.

Suppose I say that I think life in prison is a fate WORSE than death, and that it is totally unacceptable to EVER risk imposing it on an innocent man? Whaddaya gunna say to that? Lemme guess...probably sumthin like this here:

"You're an idiot."

You are an idiot, but in this case you're simply twisting a word in order to build your own case. The connotation of acceptable is agreeable. In this construct, it means lesser of evils. I'm not getting into wordplay with you. And I'm not dancing around on any Socratic plains. There is no pretty solution to the problem of convicting innocent people. But good luck with your argument that killing them is preferable to life behind bars where the actually innocent have at least a chance of reclaiming their lives, as 138 have done so far.

 

[billyshelby]

If I so desire, I will. I was at least able to engage in a rational conversation with Hopper, to the point where for a post or two he didn't use his typical writing style. All I see from your posts is a lot of whining and mising the point.

Whatever. I haven't missed one point aint is making, to the extent he's even making one.