response 1 of 165:

May 19 17:22 UTC 1994

The Supreme Court isn't going to overturn the lower courts: *they*
don't permit their affairs to be broadcast.

response 3 of 165:

May 19 21:05 UTC 1994

The execution should be broadcasted and the profits should go to the family
of his victim. 

#2: Yeah, and eating meat is barbaric to some people. 

I saw an execution in _Faces of Death_ and it was not barbaric at all. (Of
course, I'm a greedy capitalist and therefore have no feelings, so I'm
not a good indicator of how barbaric it was.) A guy was electricuted in the
electric chair. When the switch was turned on, his body shook. After probably
half a minute, the electricity was shut off and a physician took vital 
signs. They then turned the current on again (I assume the physician 
determined that he was still alive). 

The guy had tape or something on his eyes and blood poured from his 
eye sockets. I have heard that the eye-balls do wierd things during
electricutions, and thus the tape. All in all, it was not brutal at all
and the criminal died owing society a great deal. 

response 5 of 165:

May 19 22:01 UTC 1994

They're not going to broadcast it. ESPECIALLY not after all Congress has gone
thru to curb violence on TV (not that Congress had much effect.) TV is already
a disgusting and twisted device. Why make it worse?

response 7 of 165:

May 20 03:34 UTC 1994

i have seen the FOD executions as well.  The chair was in fact faked.  The gas
chamber, however, was definatly not.  I think any prisoner who does not wnat
to apear on television should, and those who do will not be aired.  Why make
him happy one last time?

response 9 of 165:

May 20 04:06 UTC 1994

The death penalty has been shown time and time again to have no greater
deterrent value than life in prison, and to be much more expensive.  It
also ammounts to a murder by the state.  How can we say that killing is
wrong, when the government does it all the time?

response 11 of 165:

May 20 05:04 UTC 1994

 In 1965, when Truman Capote wrote "In Cold Blood" it was estimated that
there were 100 or so people on death row, and the average time from 
sentence to actual execution was 13 mont (or so. I don't have the book
right before me)
  Now, in 1994 it's grown to 14 *YRS*. In order for the DP to become a
deterrant, we need to shorten the time between sentence to execution while
still being careful to respect the accused's civil rights. 
  Personally, I feel that John Gacy's case was handled all wrong. There
was no question as to his involvement, even though he denied even being
there right up to the last minute. He was what I call "undeniably guilty"
such as Leslie Williams and Jeff Dahmer. In these cases, where guilt has
been proven then the sentence should be carried out as soon as possible.

  The reason that this thing has grown to 14 yrs, is that all the sob sisters
are granting extra appeals based on frivolous matters. I personally feel
that a special circuit court be established to deal only with the appeals
of death penalty cases. I also feel that this court system be under federal
jurisdiction and to hell with the state's soverienty, because in the end,
the last appeal is usually made at the federal level for whatever thats 
worth,

response 13 of 165:

May 20 05:29 UTC 1994

 done. agora 142=world 31.

response 15 of 165:

May 20 19:41 UTC 1994

#9  Cite how lifetime in prison @ ~$20k/yr is less expensive than killing
them.

response 17 of 165:

May 20 22:53 UTC 1994

re:#9
Of course it isn't deterrent, mostly because it isn't used that often, takes t
too long and often criminals loophole out of it. The thing that REALLY DOESN'T
work is rehabilitation, contrary to many people's masochistic belief in it.
As far as costs are concerned: 5 bucks max (that's the government cost of a 
29 cent bullet.
re:#16
If you really do not have a right to defend yourself gimme your address and we
can test your instinct to survive; most VALUED and HIGH-HELD ideas go down the
drain once you test them against real life. If you have a knife at your throat
you'll piss your pants just like the rest of us and wish you weren't there;
unfortunatly the person doing it MAY NOT have your ideals (sanctity of life)
and despite your pleading kill/murder/slay/whatever you. Once in that position
it's do or die, and I promise you that you WILL defend yourself, even go as
far as to 'murder' the offender. Hopefully you'll never get into the position
to experience such a cognitive dissonance.   MIKE...

response 19 of 165:

May 21 05:16 UTC 1994

Not many executed murderers escape or are paroled from prison to
murder again.

response 21 of 165:

May 21 13:23 UTC 1994

re:#20
Seems that the last reply to a topic always gets whacked, I only get the first
sentence, and " I just cannot". Well,, if this system saves this as last reply
right now, then I should be able to read the rest of yours; I'll give it a 
shot.

response 23 of 165:

May 21 22:37 UTC 1994

The death penalty is not a deterrent because murderers don't plan on getting
caught.  Are you going to tell me that you *seriously* envision a potential
murderer being deterred because he may face the death penalty as opposed to
"only" non-parolable life?  Heck -- I would probably choose the death penalty,
between the two.

The *trial* from a high-profile death penalty case *alone* can cost the
state hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Whereas an obviously guilty party
(e.g., Leslie Williams) can be convinced to plead guilty in return for a
jail term, this is not necessarily true if you won't guarantee that the
death penalty won't be waived -- i.e., there have been some ridiculous
trials in death penalty cases premised only on the fact that the politically-
oriented prosecuting attorney refused to plea-bargain the sentence to non-
parolable life.

By the way, there have been some atrocious miscarriages of justice in
death penalty cases, with the truth coming out only through that long,
arduous, expensive appeals process.