Six pleased that death penalty stands / LJWorld.com

Archive for Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Associated Press

March 17, 2009

Topeka — Kansas Attorney General Steve Six is pleased that a bill repealing the state’s death penalty law has failed to advance in the Senate.

Senators sent the measure back to committee Monday for more study, probably ending the debate on it this year.

Six had opposed the measure. After the Senate’s voice vote, he said: “Kansas has a responsible death penalty statute and it should stand.”

Opponents of capital punishment had made its cost their biggest issue in pushing for its repeal. They cited a 2003 audit that showed capital cases generate $500,000 more in costs than other murder cases.

But Six had said the analysis was flawed and that the state shouldn’t put a price on justice.

Some senators also said the repeal bill was flawed.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

17 March 2009
at 10:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

roger_o_thornhill (Anonymous) says…

This headline isn't misleading, but I did misunderstand. I thought, “whoa, six people pleased…that's…uh…great, I guess.” (You know, since in even a smaller state like Kansas, six people would be a pretty small number when compared to the whole population.) Really though, I didn't have any comment on the article itself. Sorry if now you feel that I have wasted your time with this numbskullery (but that label might imply a point, albeit , though not too sorry.
17 March 2009
at 10:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Bladerunner (Anonymous) says…

Why reward the evil with free meals, medical care and shelter for life? I say step it up like Texas used to. Thats my opinion. Let the sniveling whiners begin whining. (You know who you are!)
17 March 2009
at 11:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas_opines (Anonymous) says…

I'm with roger-o-thornhill. Not sure it's a good idea to have a public official with a numeric name. At least it's a lower number.
17 March 2009
at 11:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

helter_skelter (Anonymous) says…

This is quite possibly my absolute biggest topics of conversation that I hate and love at the same time. I am 110%, completely and totally in favor of the death penalty. I am also completely in favor of expanding the most severe punishment to include other crimes including, but not limited to child rape, molestation, and adult rape.

I hate discussing the death penalty because those that are opposed to it often will not open their minds to it. Most of these people that I, personally have encountered have never had a child raped, a father murdered, a brother tortured and executed, a grandmother's house broken into and had her beaten with a flashlight to the point of near-death. I simply cannot respect someone who thinks the death penalty is immoral when their lives have never been touched by the most extreme forms of violence.

There are of course exceptions to every rule, but there are some repeat offenders who should just forfeit their right to breath. As stated by Bladerunner “Why reward the evil with free meals, medical care, CABLE freakin' TV, and shelter for life?” There are law-abiding citizens, productive, honest citizens who don't have these things (most notably health care).

Expand the death penalty. Support the death penalty. For God's sake, execute those who show no remorse whatsoever for a lifetime of crime.

And as a final thought: those of you whose lives have been touched by extreme acts of violence and still have the ability to be perfectly fine with letting the perpetrator live a life that some honest, unlucky, (and usually dirt-poor) would be relatively envious of: more power to you. But you just make no sense to me.
17 March 2009
at 11:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas_opines (Anonymous) says…

“I hate discussing the death penalty because those that are opposed to it often will not open their minds to it.”

“But you just make no sense to me.”

I know there was a lot of space between those… but still. It seems that opening of minds in this case means absolutely agreeing with you and your point of view.
17 March 2009
at 11:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…

helter_skelter (Anonymous) says…

“I simply cannot respect someone who thinks the death penalty is immoral when their lives have never been touched by the most extreme forms of violence.”

Have you ever been accused of a crime you didn't commit? How many people have been convicted of murder and sent to death row only to be exonerated by later evidence? Why don't you ask those people what they think of the death penalty, hmm?
17 March 2009
at 12:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blue73harley (Anonymous) says…

“Have you ever been accused of a crime you didn't commit?”

No. But I don't have any dead bodies in my basement either. I'm sure it was just some kind of misunderstanding with Dahmer and Gacy. No doubt they could have been rehabilitated.

17 March 2009
at 12:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

FenixKS (Anonymous) says…

I'm disappointed with AG Six. He should know better.
17 March 2009
at 12:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…

blue, I believe you missed my point. If we are going to use emotion and personal experience as a basis instead of objective reasoning, then there are always two sides to the story. Which should we chose? Should we defer to victims of gun crimes to determine gun control laws because of their personal experience? Or should we defer to people who used a gun in self-defense to determine gun control laws because of their personal experience? Helter argues that the opinions of those who haven't personally been touched by the effects of a terrible crime aren't worth being respected. I am simply pointing out that this argument is equally valid in reverse, and as such, invalid. Detached reasoning and arguments based upon facts and not emotions are what is called for.
17 March 2009
at 12:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

helter_skelter (Anonymous) says…

Liberty_One, you state “Detached reasoning and arguments based upon facts and not emotions are what is called for.”
The problem with this is that when talking about the death penalty and the crime(s) that warrant it, you are talking about one, or perhaps THE most personal thing that can ever happen to someone: the murder of a person. That person will never talk, cry, laugh, hug, or interact with anyone ever again. How can you be detached and reasoned in the face of something like that?
I never said that just because someone's life that hasn't been effected by extreme violence has an opinion that is lower than the rest of society. I simply stated that respecting that person's opinion holds a lot less weight than someone who has had their life effected.
The next time you think the death penalty is immoral: imagine your 6-year-old daughter being held down by a repeat sex offender as he hovers over her. Think she'll ever have her innocence restored? Think the sex offender should get to watch TV, have 3 meals a day, and free health care all with a roof over his head (as YOU, the father or mother GET to pay for it)? Imagine your mother having a knife to her throat as the same thing happens to her. Imagine your father or brother having their wallets stolen and brains blown out for some junkie with a rap sheet longer than I am tall to get his or her next fix.
The death penalty is something that should be very much personal and emotional. If you can talk about the death penalty and remove yourself from emotion completely and reason it through without putting any heart into it, I submit that you are just that self-absorbed and are more worthy to judge than the rest of us mere mortals.
17 March 2009
at 12:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

SouthernBelle (Anonymous) says…

helter_skelter: I absolutely, totally agree.
17 March 2009
at 1:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Pilgrim2 (Anonymous) says…

The best part of the death penalty: The recidivism rate is zero.
17 March 2009
at 2:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…

helter, but then can you imagine being falsely convicted of murder, or being sentenced to death because of the color of your skin? You say the opinion of someone who's life hasn't been effected by one of these crimes carries less weight, does your opinion carry less weight because you haven't been falsely sentenced to death? Guess what, an innocent who is put to death “will never talk, cry, laugh, hug, or interact with anyone ever again.” How moral would it be to you then? You see, that's why your emotion/experience-based arguments are pointless because they are equally valid in reverse. Don't reply with more “can you imagine” crud if you are unwilling to use your same technique to examine the other side of the argument.
17 March 2009
at 2:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cthulhu_4_president (Anonymous) says…

“The next time you think the death penalty is immoral: imagine your 6-year-old daughter being held down by a repeat sex offender as he hovers over her. Think she'll ever have her innocence restored?”
–––––
And the killing of a person is supposed to rerstore this hypothetical person's innocence…..how?

Oh, that's right, the death penalty is a feel-good measure for the victim and their family. It's a publicly sanctioned form of revenge, which is completely different from justice. The largest hypocrisy of our legal system has to be “Killing is wrong, so dont' do it or we'll kill you”.

If a family/friend of mine were killed in some horrible way, I'm sure I would feel the rage and desire to do harm to the responsible party. However, I hope that I (and other pro-deathers) would realize that the instant you decide that it is okay for a person to die simply because you want them to, you have become the monster that you hate.
17 March 2009
at 2:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cthulhu_4_president (Anonymous) says…

Other countries who have not at least partially abolished the death penalty: China, North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, The United States (to name a few).

Nice club we're in.

17 March 2009
at 3:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cthulhu_4_president (Anonymous) says…

“They also have sub machine guns on the street and many dont even get to go to court. The thing is… they actually “Deal” with their loosers… and deny them the chance to poison the gene pool!”
–––-
If this is how you want our legal system run, then I believe you've made my point for me. In the New World Order Under Larry I hope you're never falsely accused of a crime and someone doesn't decide to “deal” with you before your court date. Wouldn't want you polluting the gene pool would we?

By the way, since when do we *not* have submachine guns on the street?
17 March 2009
at 4:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

staff04 (Anonymous) says…

Liberty One, 12:31pm, FTW.
17 March 2009
at 4:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

FenixKS (Anonymous) says…

Helter, laws are not made from, of for, people's emotions. They are made to keep people safe. Our peniary system today is advanced enough to keep the criminals behind bars. Therefore, keeping society safe.
Since most murders are the result of uncontrolled emotion - hatred, fear, revenge - does justifying the death penalty based on emotion seem right? Bad choices are often bred from emotion. The outcome is never good.
17 March 2009
at 9:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RoeDapple (Anonymous) says…

When any crime is severe enough to warrant a penalty of death, DNA should be requested with first appeal. If all other evidence points to perp and DNA test comes back positive match, then first appeal should be last appeal.

And yes I know the test will only prove 99.999(?)%
18 March 2009
at 5:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

danemary (Anonymous) says…

6 is right! You take a life then you forfit yours, Bring back Hanging!!!!!
18 March 2009
at 9:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Onasis (Anonymous) says…

Liberty One and Helter, you both have great points. I personally am very much in favor of the death penalty and feel it should be used in more cases, especially those involving children. It is somewhat for revenge for the victims, yes I will admit. But it is also for the next victim, and the one after that… or rather to prevent the next from being a victim. They cannot repeat the evil violence if they are dead, therefore saving many others the same horrible fate… which might possibly be saving MY kids.
On the flip side, if we are going to abolish the death penalty, then they are going to have to step up the max sentences and downgrade the life in prison.
18 March 2009
at 11:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…

Onasis, you assume though that they are all guilty. Mistakes have been made countless times, as shown by the over 100 people who were wrongly sentenced to death. The system is highly faulty—think about the fact that when a black defendant is convicted of killing a white victim they are many times more likely to be sentenced to death than if the victim is black. You are so ready to kill these people in name of some false idea that if you don't murder them, your kids are in danger. .
18 March 2009
at 3:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cthulhu_4_president (Anonymous) says…

In the spirit of Onasis' logic, I'm going to start shooting everyone that walks in front of my house just in case they are trying to break in.