Because of people like Alexander??? He didn't say they should be set free ANYWHERE, just that they shouldn't be killed

How dare you judge so quickly about people you don't know? Do you think you are the only person who has lost someone?

Let's not attack one another. Remember, beliefs are formed through our experiences. We don't all have the same experiences, so of course we have different views... But at least let's try to be open-minded.

I am making infinite sense - 18 is when you are considered responsible enough to make decisions for yourself - which is why everyone under 18 is not allowed to buy cigarettes, vote, gamble, etc, etc.

Yet this person was tried and convicted as though he committed the crime at 18. Tried as an adult.

So, we can convict him and execute him as if he were 18 years old, however he was still, at 17, unable to receive any of the benefits 18 year olds get - simply because he wasn't considered responsible enough.

So, if all of a sudden we're going to pretend kids are adults and execute now, then we must give them the benefits adults have - it can't work both ways.

ok, so he cant do all the "cool" things that 18 year olds do. so are you saying that because he is 17, he never smoked a ciggarette? he never drank a beer? he never did anything that he had to wait until he was 18 to do? i find that hard to believe, especially in an instance where he was put into the position to kill someone. he knew for at LEAST a decade that killing was wrong. im sure he has known for quite some time what would happen, especially in texas. its plain fact, if you kill, either A) you get locked up for life, B)you are set free after spending some time in prison, or C) you die. well, in this case, it was decided that he should die, and rightly so. America spends billions of tax dollars per year to keep criminals who should have been killed in the first place locked up. rapists, murderers, drug dealers, etc. this person RUINED the life of a family, by TAKING the life of one of said families members. our prisons are over populated, and we are paying for it with our own money. to hell with that!! im not cold and heartless, but i feel that some people just need to die. these people are a plague, infecting the rest of humanity. the only way to get rid of it, is to get rid of it. eliminate it. if you start showing harsher punishment for these crimes, maybe, just maybe people would stop commiting them. or at the very least it would lessen it.

[ 05-29-2002, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: Morgan_Corbesant ]

While that is tragic, that is no excuse for the death penalty. As has been shown, it is no deterrent otherwise there would be no murders in Texas, seeing how bloodthirsty they are there. Besides emotion clouds proper judgment.
Indeed many people who are executed are overwhelming poor and from an ethnic minority, and most of their victims are overwhelming white and middle class or above.
Interestingly enough of the case in hand: the person executed was black, the jury was all white, despite the fact that over 1/5th of the people in the area the jury was drawn from were black.
Hmmm…

I agree. My point is that sometimes people ASSUME that because someone has a different opinion, they must have different experiences. But this is not always the case. I just hate to see such people claim their opinion has more value because of their experiences when they didn't even stop to ask themselves if the other party maybe has had a similar experience. Some rape-victims want to murder the man who did it or at least see him get the death penalty, some just want to see him locked away.

Uhhh, Actually that doesn’t work. In China, if you steal over a certain amount, they put a bullet through your skull, and then charge your family for the cost of it. And yet people still steal. The problems with paying the ultimate price for your crime, is that it’s an absolute, therefore people think it will work, but it sadly does not.
Harsher punishments is a slippery slope, That leads to stuff like you see in china, where 1000’s are executed every year,for crimes such as pimping and prostitution.

[ 05-29-2002, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: Dramnek_Ulk ]

I hope you retain the same conviction when a loved one is pumped full of lethal drugs due to a crime he or she didn't commit.</font>[/QUOTE]<font color = lightgreen>Well, if they didn't commit the crime then yes, I would be fighting for my loved one. However, Mr. Beazley did commit the crime.</font>

Not really, you're killing someone who isn't a threat to you. If it were self-defense I would have no problem with it, but the man was already locked up and the key was thrown away. Since he didn't even try to escape in all this time, I doubt he was going to if he had to sit in that cell for 70 years.

The death penalty is pure murder - the only difference is that it is state-sponsored. If we kill people for killing people to show that killing people is wrong, we become complete and utter hypocrites and we lose any moral authority.</font>[/QUOTE]<font color = lightgreen>Murderers are a threat to everyone.
How do you know he didn't try to escape?
Punishing those who commit crimes is the duty that comes with the moral, or more appropriately legal, authority that State has.</font>

Why do you even bother teaching it to your son? You obviously don't believe it. The consequence could have been life in prison without parole, but no, they had to go one step further and kill him, which is obviously unnecessary and just a way of getting revenge.</font>[/QUOTE]<font color = lightgreen>I teach it because it is right.
hmmm.... telepathic, are we?</font>

That is a ridiculous argument - just take a look at our European friends (and pretty much any civilized country other than the USA) for proof that society lives just fine without the death penalty.

So, society has the right, based on planted evidence or whatever, to arrest you, convict you, and execute you for a crime you didn't commit, and then after you're dead and they find that they were wrong, they can just turn to your family members and say "oops, sorry"?</font>[/QUOTE]<font color = lightgreen>Again, there was no "planted" evidence; he killed that man in plain view of his [Luttig's] wife.

Azred pats you on your head.

Just a friendly reminder--when you quote someone in the future, you might want to note the source of your quote. It would lead to a little less confusion. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] </font>

Interestingly enough most of them are not, few murderers go on to re-offend, besides apart from special cases, and many people commit murder dues to emotional stresses and imbalances that are temporary.
I would rather see these people helped, than killed. It is a tragedy that people kill each other, but why should we add to the blood already on our hands?
Besides what if the person executed was innocent?
AS the U.S.A already proves, many of those who are executed are innocent, and once they are gone, they’re gone.
And even one innocent man executed, is a stain and blight upon a nation that claims to uphold the constitution.

I think that certain crimes must receive certain punishments, regardless of the age of the offender. "Hmm, I am turning 18 next week, so I'd better kill Fred today, so that I won't get in as much trouble."
Does anyone believe that a magical transformation occurs on one's 18th birthday, so that, overnight, one suddenly becomes an "adult"?

So if a pair of 9 year olds murder a 3 year old they should be executed,Or otherwise receive an “adult” punishment?

[ 05-29-2002, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: Dramnek_Ulk ]