Advertisement

Previous poll Next poll

New Jersey this week banned executions. Capital punishment was re-established in Kansas in 1994, but no one has been executed in the state since 1965. What should the future of the Kansas law be?

Response Percent Votes
Maintain capital punishment.
 
52% 180
Eliminate the law.
 
44% 151
Don’t know.
 
3% 12
Total 343

Comments

kneejerkreaction 6 years, 4 months ago

Logicsound04says...no matter how many crimes you have been convicted of, your right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty never goes away on a crime by crime basis. In other words, you can't convict someone or punish them because they've been convicted of a prior crime.


kneejerkreaction says....you can in California, ever heard of 3 strikes you're out? And, a criminals' record always comes into play, in particular for repeat offenders. What are you smoking?

Logicsound04 said....You were idiotically suggesting that there are crimes (rape, pedophilia) that allow society to punish someone before they've committed the crime.

Kneejerkreacton patiently replies.....you freaking moron, this is a really stupid thing even for you to maintain. It's difficult to carry on even a semi intelligent conversation with someone who obviously can't READ. Continue interpreting others' writings in whatever way suits you....oh, and lick me.

0

Haiku_Cuckoo 6 years, 4 months ago

Well, I apologize for reading what you said the FIRST time. You said "Nope. Criminals escape" in response to my question if life without parole would be an acceptable compromise.

If your issue was that there are some crimes that deserve death as a punishment, then you should have said that life without parole was an unacceptable compromise because you prefer an more vindictive form of "justice".

Apology accepted.

0

Richard Heckler 6 years, 4 months ago

How many executions have been the wrong person? Since DNA several on death row have been released.

0

logicsound04 6 years, 4 months ago

"it cost the tax payers more to keep some scum bag in the joint for life than it does to just fry them"


Um....no it doesn't.

http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html

http://www.deathpenalty.org/index.php?pid=cost

0

logicsound04 6 years, 4 months ago

"The fact that the murderer may kill again upon escape is very real possibility with the life sentence, but that isn't why I'm opposed to life sentences for murderers"


Well, I apologize for reading what you said the FIRST time. You said "Nope. Criminals escape" in response to my question if life without parole would be an acceptable compromise.

If your issue was that there are some crimes that deserve death as a punishment, then you should have said that life without parole was an unacceptable compromise because you prefer an more vindictive form of "justice".

=============================================

"But, a quick aside, logic, what on earth are you talking about? Since when does the constitution have anything to do with preserving criminals' rights? Criminals lose many of their constitutional rights ipso facto."


No matter how many crimes you have been convicted of, your right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty never goes away on a crime by crime basis. In other words, you can't convict someone or punish them because they've been convicted of a prior crime.

You were idiotically suggesting that there are crimes (rape, pedophilia) that allow society to punish someone before they've committed the crime.

=============================================

"logicsound04, seems you've fallen into a circular loop. Your previous is a pile of horse manure. If I get the time, I'll demolish your argument, but I'm busy right now."


I'm still waiting for said demolishment. It's been 6 hours--I'd think you'd be done jerking off by now.

0

mluna785 6 years, 4 months ago

It's costing us money to keep those guys alive. If the murdered someone or raped someone or molested someone let them die. That's less money that gets taken from us.

0

Godot 6 years, 4 months ago

I'm surprised that, so far, a majority vote in favor of the death penalty. IMHO, it is barbaric and should be abandoned.

0

RonaldWilson 6 years, 4 months ago

Murders held for life without parole still kill people, prison guards, other inmates. Using the logic of some on this board, those other inmates could be innocent themselves. Therefore, to protect the innocent, persons convicted of first degree murder should be euthanized. Unborn people should be allowed to live as they are innocent and should enjoy all of the rights outlined in our constitution, among these is L I F E, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. How deranged must one be to think Timothy McVey has more of a right to breathe than your average "unwanted" baby.

I will support the right for any woman to end her child's life if she carries it to term and puts an ad in the paper offering a free baby to good home. If there are no takers in 30 days, she can cut its little head off if that's her "choice". You see, in that scenario, there would be no unwanted babies. Some intellegent person would step forward to raise it. I'll never understand you lefty fools.

0

spammer89 6 years, 4 months ago

I'm pro capital punshiment. If you do the crime you must be prepared to do the time. I know that there are cases of people being covicted and did not commit the crime, but most of the time they did. So in my opinion the crimminal made the choice to do the crime and new what could come of it if found guilty. So if they are guilty then get it over with it cost the tax payers more to keep some scum bag in the joint for life than it does to just fry them.

0

Kathy Getto 6 years, 4 months ago

kneejerkreaction (Anonymous) says:

"Since when does the constitution have anything to do with preserving criminals' rights?"


Ummm, due process, perhaps?

0

kneejerkreaction 6 years, 4 months ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says:

kneejerkreaction says....."We put rapists in prison because of something they might do.

We put pedophiles in prison because of something they might do."

logicsound04 says...Really? Was there an amendment to the Constitution of which I'm unaware?


But, a quick aside, logic, what on earth are you talking about? Since when does the constitution have anything to do with preserving criminals' rights? Criminals lose many of their constitutional rights ipso facto.

0

kneejerkreaction 6 years, 4 months ago

logicsound04, seems you've fallen into a circular loop. Your previous is a pile of horse manure. If I get the time, I'll demolish your argument, but I'm busy right now.

0

Haiku_Cuckoo 6 years, 4 months ago

If you actually believed this, then my compromise (of life without parole) would be acceptable. When I offered that compromise, you responded by saying that the criminals may escape.

Ummm, no. I believe the death penalty is suitable punishment for the crime. Life without parole is unfit because it allows the murderer to live a full life while his or her victim pushes up petunias. The fact that the murderer may kill again upon escape is very real possibility with the life sentence, but that isn't why I'm opposed to life sentences for murderers.

0

logicsound04 6 years, 4 months ago

"We put rapists in prison because of something they might do.

We put pedophiles in prison because of something they might do."


Really? Was there an amendment to the Constitution of which I'm unaware?

I'm shocked that you would actually try to pass this off as a reasonable argument. In every situation you named, there has been a crime committed (rape or child molestation). Perhaps you are getting confused with the fact that statistically, pedophiles are almost certain to repeat their crime.

============================================

"They should be punished by death because of the murder that they already committed, not the additional one they might commit when they escape."


If you actually believed this, then my compromise (of life without parole) would be acceptable. When I offered that compromise, you responded by saying that the criminals may escape.

In other words, your justification for the death penalty (over life without parole) was the potential crime that may be committed if the convict escapes. In fact, you said that the death penalty was necessary to prevent said escape and subsequent crime.

0

kneejerkreaction 6 years, 4 months ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says: Oh, I stand corrected. This is much more reasonable-to kill someone because of something they might do. Unbelievable.


What's so unbelievable? We put rapists in prison because of something they might do.

We put pedophiles in prison because of something they might do.

Why not impose the death penalty for something that criminals might do again? Makes sense when you're dealing with a criminal who has committed heinous enough crimes to deserve it.

0

Haiku_Cuckoo 6 years, 4 months ago

Oh, I stand corrected. This is much more reasonable-to kill someone because of something they might do.

Ummmm, no. They should be punished by death because of the murder that they already committed, not the additional one they might commit when they escape..

0

75x55 6 years, 4 months ago

"at least allow it to be carried out by a doctor"

Why? Most, if not all, death row inmates managed the task of prematurely removing someone's life without a doctor's assistance.

0

logicsound04 6 years, 4 months ago

"Nope. Criminals escape."


Oh, I stand corrected. This is much more reasonable--to kill someone because of something they might do.

Unbelievable.

The logic behind the death penalty is vengeance in its purest form. Why don't we just make all crimes a tit for tat sort of punishment?

Assault someone? We beat the living crap out of you Steal? We hire someone to buglarize your home Vandalize? Better arm cops with spraypaint cans...

The worst part of all this is that I bet the number of people who are okay with this form of "justice" is far higher than it was 6 years ago...

0

ksdivakat 6 years, 4 months ago

It is ironic that most of the posts on here seem to be against the death penalty. Interesting last night on world news, they had an executioner who agreed to an interview. He has done 68 executions in 15 yrs. He was just an ordinary guard at the prison who the prison approached and asked him to become "certified" to carry out executions. The executioner is not a physician, not even a medical person, but just someone who had to get certification like you would get a CDL license, but there is probably more to getting the CDL. THis man knew that he had put men to death who were innocent. And in fact for 25 yrs this mans wife never knew that he was the executioner! I guess my point is, if you agree with it or not, at least allow it to be carried out by a doctor, and if a dr cant because of the oath, then I guess they better re-examine the system and figure something else out! Although these people are criminal, the main point is how many innocent people have died behind something they did not do?? At least if the death penalty is imposed, make sure that there is 110% DNA evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that this is indeed the person who done it!

0

observantone 6 years, 4 months ago

Well, 75 - I understand those variations - good comparisons - but, isn't God the final judge? If an innocent person is executed, what do you suppose God will have to say on judgment day? I just think there is too much room for error, and why would anyone want to err on the side of murder?

Kam - no I am not anti-abortion - I am pro-choice.

0

beatrice 6 years, 4 months ago

I'm all for abortion, especially in the case when a fetus commits murder. It will set an example for the other fetuses (feti?). Death to the killer babies!

If y'all are going to turn this into an abortion issue, then I'm gonna do my best to make jokes about it.

Haiku: how many of the escaped prisoners you mentioned were being held for murder? If the answer is none, since murderers are usually held in maximum security, then does that mean we should kill all convicts since they might one day escape and kill someone?

0

75x55 6 years, 4 months ago

"And you have been given the right to decide who dies by whom?"

What a completely facetious question. Makes me wonder if anyone receives any instruction in government anymore...

Try these variations:

"And you have been given the right to decide who is locked up in prisons by whom?" "And you have been given the right to decide who required to pay taxes by whom?" "And you have been given the right to decide who must pay parking tickets by whom?"

This authority comes to the state by the will of the people. If the will of the people decides that they no longer wish to allow such punishments (such as the jerseyites), then so be it.

0

Kam_Fong_as_Chin_Ho 6 years, 4 months ago

And you have been given the right to decide who dies by whom?

I don't decide. That's up to the judge and the jury.

By the way, are you anti-abortion? Just curious.

0

observantone 6 years, 4 months ago

And you have been given the right to decide who dies by whom?

0

Kam_Fong_as_Chin_Ho 6 years, 4 months ago

how can a pro-life advocate be so vehemenently against abortion, but think it is right to kill an adult?

It might have something to do with the fact that fetuses don't go around murdering people.

Unborn child = Harmless John Wayne Gacy = Harmful (well, not anymore)

0

observantone 6 years, 4 months ago

IMO The death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights. It is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state in the name of justice. It violates the right to life...It is the most cruel, inhumane and degrading punishment. There can never be any justification for torture or for cruel treatment.

A Catholic Cardinal said. "the death penalty diminishes all of us, increases disrespect for human life, and offers the tragic illusion that we can teach that killing is wrong by killing."

On abortion - which this thread is bound to turn into - let's pretend that a fetus is a human being - how can a pro-life advocate be so vehemenently against abortion, but think it is right to kill an adult?

Good reading: Who Owns Death? by Robert Jay Lifton and Greg Mitchell

0

ndmoderate 6 years, 4 months ago

Stop killing people to show people that killing people is wrong.

0

Haiku_Cuckoo 6 years, 4 months ago

If the best argument the pro-murder penalty people can come up with is that a dead criminal can't reoffend, then I assume changing the parole process so that "life without parole" truly meant life without parole would be an acceptable compromise, right?

Nope. Criminals escape. Last year an escaped convict killed a sheriff. A couple months ago two convicts escaped and killed a woman in Texas. Three days ago, two convicts escaped and remain at large.

0

beatrice 6 years, 4 months ago

It only took eight posts before somebody dragged the abortion issue into the mix! Well done! Let us remember to never discuss an issue when all those baby killers are still out there killing babies! Baby killers must be stopped at all costs! No other issues until the baby killers are stopped! Stop the baby killers! Stop the baby killers! Stop the baby killers!

Just stop the killing!

Well, except for the murderers. We gotta kill them. Kill the killers! Kill the killers! Stop the baby killers and kill the killers! Just kill, kill, KILL!!!!!!!!

(okay, I gotta lay off the coffee)

0

july241983 6 years, 4 months ago

"If they could lower the standards and not be so specific (like just plain murder instead of killing a law enforcement officer) then maybe KS could actually use the death penalty and lower the murder rates."


Too bad the US Supreme Court said that kind of law is unconstitutional. It has to be specific.

0

logicsound04 6 years, 4 months ago

"Ironic how some of the people who feel Capital Punishment is soo 'inhumane', yet think nothing of abortion."


Equally ironic is how some people can't grasp the difference between an unborn fetus and a living human being.

I believe there is a psychology term for it: generalization

0

logicsound04 6 years, 4 months ago

"Here's a guy who murdered his wife, was put on parole, then killed two more people while out on parole. The death penalty would have kept the murder rate lower in this case."


Sounds like our parole system was to blame here. Or the fact that this guy was given the opportunity to parole in the first place.

If the best argument the pro-murder penalty people can come up with is that a dead criminal can't reoffend, then I assume changing the parole process so that "life without parole" truly meant life without parole would be an acceptable compromise, right?

0

Baille 6 years, 4 months ago

"100% of executed murderers never reoffend."

With logic like that, let's just apply it to every felony.

Capital punishment is the cold-blooded killing of a human being. It is morally reprehensible.

It is also too costly, too randomly applied, and completely ineffective.

http://www.mvfr.org/

0

Haiku_Cuckoo 6 years, 4 months ago

the death penalty has no effect on the murder rate

Allow me to disagree. Here's a guy who murdered his wife, was put on parole, then killed two more people while out on parole. The death penalty would have kept the murder rate lower in this case.

http://www.localnews8.com/Global/story.asp?S=7499515

0

Universe 6 years, 4 months ago

Ironic how some of the people who feel Capital Punishment is soo 'inhumane', yet think nothing of abortion.

0

gogoplata 6 years, 4 months ago

I think capital punishment is just for criminals like Dennis Rader who decribed the details of the murders he commited leaving no doubt that he was guilty. Maybe for the Carr brothers as well. But the death penalty scares me for the simple fact that sometimes innocent people are found guilty.

0

RonaldWilson 6 years, 4 months ago

100% of executed murderers never reoffend.

You can't say that about lifers in prison.

0

kneejerkreaction 6 years, 4 months ago

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says: It's been shown time and again that the death penalty has no effect on the murder rate- except to raise the rate of murders committed by the state.


Well, bozo, some people are just better not to have around. Simple as that.

The death penalty is not a deterrent to crime. I see it as more of a clean up, although I've read it costs more to croak a deserving criminal than to keep them in prison for life.

0

kramdorf 6 years, 4 months ago

Please do not use NJ as an example of how to do anything politically! NJ politics makes even Lawrence, KS appear conservative, and for that they are one of the most financially deficit states in the country.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 4 months ago

"then maybe KS could actually use the death penalty and lower the murder rates."

It's been shown time and again that the death penalty has no effect on the murder rate-- except to raise the rate of murders committed by the state.

0

openminded 6 years, 4 months ago

I think they need to amend the law. It is too hard to actually have that brought up in a case. If they could lower the standards and not be so specific (like just plain murder instead of killing a law enforcement officer) then maybe KS could actually use the death penalty and lower the murder rates.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.