Texas has just executed a man convicted of a crime committed when he was seventeen.

Read all about it.

http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/print/...1?OpenDocument

As they say, he can't vote, can't buy cigarettes, can't drink alcohol, and can't own property, but if he commits a crime at 17, he can be murdered for it by the government.

Pure hypocrisy.

pure justice. he knew the difference between right and wrong and he probably did all of the above things.. just illegaly.

[ 05-29-2002, 12:02 AM: Message edited by: dizzy ]

i'm pretty sure napoleon knew exactly what he was doing that time and he also knew what the concequences would be, so i'm sorry, but i don't feel sorry for napoleon. He took someone's life, now it's time for him to meet the reaper.

<font color = lightgreen>Yes, Texas did do that. He was arrested, tried, convicted of murder, and sentenced to death by lethal injection. This, of course, means that he gets several appeals, all of which resulted in not overturning the conviction/sentencing. Neither governor Rick Perry, President Bush, nor the Supreme Court saw any valid reason to intervene in the administration of justice, and so he was put to death.

What seems to be the difficulty here? How many appeals and how much consideration of "human rights" did the victim receive?

I have nothing against Amnesty International, but this man was not a political prisoner, he was a duly convicted criminal with no mental impairment.

Does the fact that a murderer may be only 17 make murder somehow more acceptable or any less disgusting? Does the 17-year-old murderer not know the difference between right and wrong? Even my 6-year-old knows that hurting someone else is wrong.

<font color = white>If you are going to commit and adult act such as murder but you are under the age of 18, then you should be prepared to accept the consequences an adult would face.</font>

Finally, I simply must make myself a reminder to care about what Amnesty International has to say one of these days. [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img] </font>

[ 05-29-2002, 12:43 AM: Message edited by: Azred ]

If we're going to treat people like this like 18-year olds, why not give them the right to vote, smoke, drink, enlist, whatever? The whole reason we make people wait for all that stuff is because 18 is the age at which people are considered responsible enough. Well, if we're going to treat kids like adults in the realm of punishment, surely we must give them the benefits adults have - and allow them to do the aforementioned things.

HMMM where to start.

At the age of 17 he can own property. Land, car, boat. Makes no difference. For that matter in the state of Texas you can own property at any age. So in that, Youre wrong.

Ive always disagreed with the fact that you can join the Army with parental permission at the age of 17, which in turn leads to the possibility that you can fight and die for your country but you arent responsible enough to drink, smoke, or vote. How rediculous is that?
The Surgeon General has determined that smoking is hazardous to your health. Arent bullets and hand grenades dangerous as well???

I, on the other hand, must fall into the hipocrate category because I believe that most people that are over the age of 4 know the difference between right and wrong. 17 or 15 are a far cry from 4. They know they arent supposed to murder people and yet want to hide behind the fact that they arent of "legal" age. They refuse to accept responsibilities for their actions. THATS a load of crap. If an 11 year grabs a gun and goes school and kills 15 kids because they made fun of his buck teeth, that kid should be charged as an adult. It took MALICE and FORETHOUGHT. He knew exactly what he was doing when he did it. Many of the kids that perpetrate crimes like that never feel any remorse whatsoever. Yes they apologise to save their ass. The fact is when the cameras go off and they are back in their cell, they laugh and brag about it. And they are held in high regard by other kids in jail.

How many cop killers are on death row??? how many get a hard time while they are awaiting death??? VERY FEW>>>> they are HONORED by the other prisoners. "You killed a cop??? Yous cool wit me man [img]smile.gif[/img] "

As Berreta used to say "Dont do the crime if ya cant do the time." In this case its a shortened life sentence.

[ 05-29-2002, 01:05 AM: Message edited by: Earthdog ]

[img]graemlins/1pissed.gif[/img]
I almost avoided this because of how disgustingly PC this board has become, but my opinion is as valid as anyone else.

The only problem with the execution is that we fed, clothed and sheltered the murderer for five years. We wait too long, here in Texas, to carry out the executions. We also spend too much money trying to execute them in a humane way. Stabbing or cutting a throat is free, and the knife can be washed and re-used. [img]graemlins/1pissed.gif[/img]

No, I am not joking.

If this gets me banned, oh well.

[ 05-29-2002, 01:21 AM: Message edited by: RudeDawg ]

And just a side thought on this: If I were to brutally murder the leading members of Amnesty International do you think the surviving members would feel sorry for me and ask the judges to be lenient?

And a BIG RIGHT ON to everything you said Azred.

[ 05-29-2002, 01:13 AM: Message edited by: Earthdog ]

I agree 100%. You certainly can tell the difference between right and wrong by 17.

Your whole defense for him keeping his life is based upon his ability to smoke?

Say he could smoke, drink, and buy guns. Would he then be more guilty of his crime? Would he then deserve to die?

I'm afraid you're not making much sense.

I agree. How much is a box of 30-30 shells?? $20??? Firing Squad works too. Let the Army get some practice in. Theres the "pop up" target range too.

Most criminals in the state of Texas that are awaiting Execution wait (generally) a minimum of 10 years and average 14 years. An "old timer" on deathrow has been waiting 18 to 20 years at a cost of $35,000 a year BEFORE medical expenses.

Buy the 30-30 shells.

I'm completely with you. I believe that punishment should be quick and final. I guarantee that if people knew they would die right away, they would think twice about commiting a crime.

I know this is going to come up so Im gonna go ahead and start it:

The Death Sentence does NOT deter ANYONE from committing MURDER.

No but it keeps THAT guy from doing it again!!!!!!

A leniant sentence to minors should be given for vandalism NOT murder.
Bullet to the head. Minimal pain and little cost.

true, he isnt old enough to vote, or drink, or buy porn, or anything else, but he IS old enough to know right from wrong, and old enough to make his own decisions. he knew what he was doing, he knew the consequences of his actions, and now he has to live with them. true, he may be sentenced to death, but that is justice. laws state that murder is punishable by death, the punishment should fit the crime, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, etc. i say he should at least get the choice of death though. i would opt for good ole fireing squad, or kill him in the same manner as the one HE killed.

And then they call the US a civilized country, shees.

Anyway, the question i always ask myself is this. How many innocents are you willing to put to death ? I mean, if murderers don't get convicted, and it happened, then it stands to reason that innocent people will get convicted simply on the basis that they couldn't afford a good enough lawyer. This guy might have done a crime, i don't know the full story therefor i say might, but does the exucution of 1, or 1 million for that matter, criminals justify the execution of 1 innocent ?
Secondly, was he a threat ? I mean, i can see some justification in putting an end to a psychopat because if you release him, he's probably going to do it again. But was this guy really a threat. It seems that, from what i read, the eye for an eye comment is mostly used and you guys jump on frying somebody, even if he isn't a threat anymore. I do agree that this is somewhat hard to prove.
And saying that president Bush, and i use that term losely, didn't see any reason to overturn the death penalty is almost saying that the pope is Catholic.

<font color="lightblue">The way I see this is that you should not be able to murder ANYONE; minor or adult, criminal or innocent, man or woman...
The death penalty breaks one simple rule which we learn at 5 or 6-

<div align="center"><font size=4>TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT!! </font></div></font>

Very well said Lennon. It is a bit dodgy for a society to say basically - "All life is sacred, so because this man took a life that was sacred we can take his life.". Either no one should kill or it is ok to kill. Make your mind up.

I personally just have a problem with anyone thinking they have the right to kill another person under any circumstances. I don't care how many people voted for them they shouldn't have the power of life and death in my view.

Well, I agree with the eye for any eye bit. The guy who was executed sure decided HE had the power of life and death over someone. Hes a proven murder so theres no way to know if he WONT ever be a threat to someone again. If the government thinks it was bad enough they remove the possibility. And in Texas you are auotmaticly given a minimum of 3 appeals. So his lawyers couldnt find enough reason to get his sentence commuted to life.

I find it truly comical that EVERY SINGLE person on deathrow finds God or Allah or Buddha. Well. They didnt give a flip about religion until it was their own life on the line.

In Texas just last year ,I believe it was, the first womam in the state was executed for a double murder. She bragged to the police when she was caught that EVERY time she hit her ex-boyfriend and his woman with a PICK-AXE she had an ORGASM.

Funny that she found God and was Saved by the Blood of Jesus Christ AFTER she had been given the death sentence. Im glad she got saved. Whether or not God will let her through the golden gates of Heaven remains to be seen. I hope judgement day is a long way off.

Why is it every time a pitbull attacks someone (even if its defending its own yard or home) its considered a Dangerous Animal or Dangerous Breed and the dog is put down???? So why is it that a human can go on a killing spree and murder 14 people some people think he should be given a second chance. Its been my experience that dogs are alot more trustworthy given the second chance.

Ive read about the kids who have been mauled by dogs. Ive also read about serial murderers who've been sent to prison for molesting and killing 9 year olds only to get out of prison 20 years later BECAUSE THE COURT THOUGHT THEY HAD CHANGED AND WERE NO LONGER A THREAT, only to commit almost identicle crimes to what they had been convicted for in the first place.

Nobody cares if the dog gets a second chance.

Personally I am against death as a punishment in most cases except for rape, paedophilia or murder. He knew what he did was wrong yet he still did it, usually an eye for an eye would not be ideal, but in this case he had to be removed so that he did not hurt others. Of course he could have just gotten a life sentence, but why clothe, feed and shelter a man his entire life as reward for killing someone?

<font color = lightgreen>I cannot disagree that miscarriages of justice occur; unfortunately they are part of life. However, could we let 1 murderer go free to save 1 innocent? How many might the murderer kill?
Was he a threat? He was a convicted murderer, thus I feel he was a threat. Others might feel differently, to which I must ask, "How do you know he is not a threat anymore?"</font>

<font color = lightgreen>No one murdered anyone here, except Mr. Beazley's murder of Mr. Luttig. This was an execution, not a murder. True, someone died, but the connotations are completely different.
I agree that two wrongs do not make a right--I teach that to my own son--but there must also be consequences for one's actions; in this case, the State decreed that the consequence was death by injection.</font>

<font color = lightgreen>Even if individuals do not have the right to kill others (and certainly we do not), society must have that right. A society, a nation, is like the human body--your body has the "right" to rid itself of infection; so, too, must society have the right to remove that which would destroy it. If not, the society would die.</font>

My thought has always been this: I think that those sentenced to death should be used for the testing of new drugs/ products. We kill and abuse countless innocent animals to test drugs before they are made available to the public. What better way to test something for use on humans, than to test it ON a human?

I like this idea. I like it a lot....

How about we also kill them in a way that damages their body very little, like a bullet to the head or a cut throat, and then donate their bodies to medical science and their organs to whatever people might be in need of a transplant? I like that idea too.

hmmm, that's not such a bad idea.

was he a threat ? Why don't you ask that question to the familymembers of the person he killed ?

i agree with azred. Some criminals don't deserve to live or get a second chance. For instance that ted bundy guy, i like to compare him with a tumor, if a person has a tumor he goes the the hospital and has it removed or cut out of his body, nobody wants to live with a thing like that.

Your whole defense for him keeping his life is based upon his ability to smoke?

Say he could smoke, drink, and buy guns. Would he then be more guilty of his crime? Would he then deserve to die?

I'm afraid you're not making much sense.</font>[/QUOTE]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.

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.

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.

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.

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"?

To all you wonderfully civilized people who want executions immediately after the person is convicted - the waiting period is so that evidence and suchlike can be reviewed, so we can make damn sure that the offender was guilty. Granted, we probably still kill a few innocents, but it's a lot fewer than would be killed under your system.

If in the near future your system is implemented, and a loved one is executed immediately after the trial (even though they were innocent), and you can stick to your guns and still support your stance, come talk to me then.

And to YOU, wonderfully inexperienced one... when YOU have a loved one murdered and the murderer set free because of your beliefs, come talk to ME then.
I have had 1 family member, and 2 wonderful friends murdered. One young lady was stabbed to death by her husband, with multiple stab wounds in her BACK. But because of people like YOU, he was set free. He went to her families home, and shot her brother, before being gunned-down.
People like YOU are responsible for his death.

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 ]