Community Chat

[italia8140]

---

@SydneyH wrote:

---

@Puzzle Piece wrote:

---

---

One less crazy in the world.  Wouldn't be that bad.  He's not worth keeping alive while others were killed by him. 

---

I'm sorry you feel that way.  He still has a family and may be able to point the way as to why people commit these types of crimes.

---

 DOUBT IT. Even professionals have a difficult time pinpointing why people like him commit crimes. His family is probably just as psycho as he is.

[Lila Belle]

---

@biancardi wrote:

---

@suzyQ3 wrote:

---

@LuvMySpaniels wrote:

---

@suzyQ3 wrote:

---

@LuvMySpaniels wrote:

I believe "an eye for an eye" .... when I read about the mother who lost her own child, her unborn baby, and she herself became paralyzed, I felt this man did not deserve life.

He was rational enough to "plan" the massacre, so he should not be allowed the privilege of waking up every day looking forward to having three meals a day, TV, and cigarettes.

---

If you believe in "an eye for any eye," you do not believe in our Constitution or our legal system. You believe in a form of fundamentalist law that we so loudly decry in certain countries. You believe in Sharia law.

---

@suzyQ3

I'm quoting the Bible ... isn't that what America was founded upon?  In case you didn't know, most of our founding fathers and signers of the Constitution were Christians and wrote it as such to include those sentiments.  

---

To answer your question, no, America was not founded upon the Bible. And while some of our Founding Fathers were Christian, others were Deists.

The Constitution mentions God twice; it never mentions Christianity or any other religion. Those two mentions of God, btw, are supportive of the separation of Church and State. It is a secular document.

Besides, an eye for an eye was from the Old Testament. If you're Christian, surely you know that things changed with the New Testament:

"You have heard that it was said, `An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.'  But I tell you, don't resist him who is evil; but whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also."

---

BRAVA!! Great factual post, suzy

---

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Not to mention that we're not a theocracy.

[SydneyH]

---

@italia8140 wrote:

---

 DOUBT IT. Even professionals have a difficult time pinpointing why people like him commit crimes. His family is probably just as psycho as he is.

---

Clearly you are not following the case, the family has testified to his background.  Secondly professionals ARE making progress in this area.  I would recommend the PBS special Mind of A Rampage Killer if you have any doubt...........

[Financialgrl]

I personally am not against the death penalty;  however, what bothers me very much is that Holmes is alive and his parents and friends can still speak to him and visit him but he took that away from the parents/friends of those he killed. 

So I think if you kill someone and get life in prison without the possibility of parole, all rights should be removed - no visits or calls allowed from any friends or family.  Let him languish behind bars and his new "family" can be those like him in prison. 

[Stray]

I am pro death penalty for crimes such as this one.  But, I do have to present a different prospective.  I am a nurse and attorney.  I often presented arguments pro death penalty in law school....coming from the "eye for an eye" mentality but not from the religious prospective.  Of course, I value life as a nurse.  I won't mention the guilty party but did watch the administration of medication to end the life of a high profile, much hated murderer via closed circuit.  I came out a little shaky because to end the life of that terrible human being, was just too d**n easy.  It was like someone getting sedation prior to say a colonoscopy And he slipped quietly away.  His face showed no remorse and I don't think relatives got any satisfaction....they still lost their loved ones.  Life without parole, would be fine if heinous criminals were in a five by five cell with exercise one hour, no books, no movies, no nothing.  But, these animals have rights and some prisoners actually enjoy prison life, especially those impaired like this guy.  There is no stress, their life and routines are the same every day; they like routine and are usually antisocial and don't miss human interaction...it is hard to put a fellow human to death but he had no problem putting fellow humans to death....death penalty issues are never black or white....are emotionally charged and difficult for jurors.  

[suzyQ3]

---

@Greenhouse wrote:

I am pro death penalty for crimes such as this one.  But, I do have to present a different prospective.  I am a nurse and attorney.  I often presented arguments pro death penalty in law school....coming from the "eye for an eye" mentality but not from the religious prospective.  Of course, I value life as a nurse.  I won't mention the guilty party but did watch the administration of medication to end the life of a high profile, much hated murderer via closed circuit.  I came out a little shaky because to end the life of that terrible human being, was just too d**n easy.  It was like someone getting sedation prior to say a colonoscopy And he slipped quietly away.  His face showed no remorse and I don't think relatives got any satisfaction....they still lost their loved ones.  Life without parole, would be fine if heinous criminals were in a five by five cell with exercise one hour, no books, no movies, no nothing.  But, these animals have rights and some prisoners actually enjoy prison life, especially those impaired like this guy.  There is no stress, their life and routines are the same every day; they like routine and are usually antisocial and don't miss human interaction...it is hard to put a fellow human to death but he had no problem putting fellow humans to death....death penalty issues are never black or white....are emotionally charged and difficult for jurors.  

---

Greenhouse,  the parted I bolded bothers me. It seems as if you are promoting cruel and unusual punishment, something that is explicitly prohibited in the Constitution.

Whether the man you saw die showed remorse or not is irrelevant. I doubt that even if he had, his relatives would have been in any way satisfied. The fact is, he was put to death. An eye for an eye would most likely have involved a barbaric act against this man. That's not what we do.

I'm also dismayed at your feelings about prisoners. There again, we do not engage in cruel and unusual punishment. I doubt very much that the vast majority of prisoners would not jump at the chance of freedom. I don't think that we can at all generalize that these people are generally anti-social and don't miss human interaction. I would imagine that that very routine of which you speak is mind-numbing and unbearable for most.

We try to be an enlightened and civilized society. I think that for the most part, we succeed.

[NoelSeven]

What bothers me is that so few understand mental illness.  People with a serious mental illness, those who are psychotic, like those with schizophrenia, are not responsible for their behavior.

Their brain is not functioning properly, so how can we hold them accountable for something they have no control over?

Yes, we have to protect others from them, we can do that by giving them life in prison.  What good does it do to kill them, other than to show our ignorance of mental illness?

[Stray]

---

@suzyQ3 wrote:

---

@Greenhouse wrote:

I am pro death penalty for crimes such as this one.  But, I do have to present a different prospective.  I am a nurse and attorney.  I often presented arguments pro death penalty in law school....coming from the "eye for an eye" mentality but not from the religious prospective.  Of course, I value life as a nurse.  I won't mention the guilty party but did watch the administration of medication to end the life of a high profile, much hated murderer via closed circuit.  I came out a little shaky because to end the life of that terrible human being, was just too d**n easy.  It was like someone getting sedation prior to say a colonoscopy And he slipped quietly away.  His face showed no remorse and I don't think relatives got any satisfaction....they still lost their loved ones.  Life without parole, would be fine if heinous criminals were in a five by five cell with exercise one hour, no books, no movies, no nothing.  But, these animals have rights and some prisoners actually enjoy prison life, especially those impaired like this guy.  There is no stress, their life and routines are the same every day; they like routine and are usually antisocial and don't miss human interaction...it is hard to put a fellow human to death but he had no problem putting fellow humans to death....death penalty issues are never black or white....are emotionally charged and difficult for jurors.  

---

Greenhouse,  the parted I bolded bothers me. It seems as if you are promoting cruel and unusual punishment, something that is explicitly prohibited in the Constitution.

Whether the man you saw die showed remorse or not is irrelevant. I doubt that even if he had, his relatives would have been in any way satisfied. The fact is, he was put to death. An eye for an eye would most likely have involved a barbaric act against this man. That's not what we do.

I'm also dismayed at your feelings about prisoners. There again, we do not engage in cruel and unusual punishment. I doubt very much that the vast majority of prisoners would not jump at the chance of freedom. I don't think that we can at all generalize that these people are generally anti-social and don't miss human interaction. I would imagine that that very routine of which you speak is mind-numbing and unbearable for most.

We try to be an enlightened and civilized society. I think that for the most part, we succeed.

---

The viewpoints are my own and I don't do trial law for just that reason.  I have been on jury's and am fair; I would not want to be nor would I be chosen for a death penalty case.   The person I viewed killed innocent children.  I did not say anything about a barbaric act; that person took lives and deserved to lose his, I did not suggest torture; the death penalty, usually, is quite humane as this was...the children died quite differently.  I have no feelings about prisoners....have you visited death row? I have.  Have you interviewed or interacted with prisoners or the criminally insane? I have...Some do actually prefer it because their day is structured, they have friends, they are fed and clean....and, it is better inside than out for many.   I did not generalize, I said some....you can't fathom it because, a normal individual values freedom...I don't believe intorturing or hurting anyone as I am a nurse as well but I don't believe in sending a murderer to a country club.  The Constitution is the foundation of human rights and an old document.  Heinous crimes against innocents were probably rare and unthinkable in colonial times.  Crimes of today are much more violent and not so rare.  If you think prisons were ideal in colonial days, think again....The Constitution protects the rights of every human being including those murdered or maimed.  Isolation in prison also protects prisoners from each other...The Constitution does not dictate prison accommodations. 

I have worked a very long time in the world and I am quite enlightened but also quite realistic and have great empathy for victims and their feelings which is why I do the work I do. 

[italia8140]

---

@suzyQ3 wrote:

---

@Greenhouse wrote:

I am pro death penalty for crimes such as this one.  But, I do have to present a different prospective.  I am a nurse and attorney.  I often presented arguments pro death penalty in law school....coming from the "eye for an eye" mentality but not from the religious prospective.  Of course, I value life as a nurse.  I won't mention the guilty party but did watch the administration of medication to end the life of a high profile, much hated murderer via closed circuit.  I came out a little shaky because to end the life of that terrible human being, was just too d**n easy.  It was like someone getting sedation prior to say a colonoscopy And he slipped quietly away.  His face showed no remorse and I don't think relatives got any satisfaction....they still lost their loved ones.  Life without parole, would be fine if heinous criminals were in a five by five cell with exercise one hour, no books, no movies, no nothing.  But, these animals have rights and some prisoners actually enjoy prison life, especially those impaired like this guy.  There is no stress, their life and routines are the same every day; they like routine and are usually antisocial and don't miss human interaction...it is hard to put a fellow human to death but he had no problem putting fellow humans to death....death penalty issues are never black or white....are emotionally charged and difficult for jurors.  

---

Greenhouse,  the parted I bolded bothers me. It seems as if you are promoting cruel and unusual punishment, something that is explicitly prohibited in the Constitution.

Whether the man you saw die showed remorse or not is irrelevant. I doubt that even if he had, his relatives would have been in any way satisfied. The fact is, he was put to death. An eye for an eye would most likely have involved a barbaric act against this man. That's not what we do.

I'm also dismayed at your feelings about prisoners. There again, we do not engage in cruel and unusual punishment. I doubt very much that the vast majority of prisoners would not jump at the chance of freedom. I don't think that we can at all generalize that these people are generally anti-social and don't miss human interaction. I would imagine that that very routine of which you speak is mind-numbing and unbearable for most.

We try to be an enlightened and civilized society. I think that for the most part, we succeed.

---

 NO, she didn't - not even close.