Originally Posted by
flyandive
On a serious note though, yes, I am against the death penalty, it is supposed to be a deterrent but isn't and is far too inconsistent. Thoughts?
Since you asked ... I think you made your own counter argument for the death penalty, it needs to be more consistent and much more swiftly administered. The death penalty is not a deterrent because people on death row (generally speaking) sit there for 15 - 30 years going through appeal after appeal, and they don't die quick enough. The DC snipers, BOTH of them, should have been executed no later than 30 days after their convictions. The Fort Hood terrorist should be executed no later than 30 days after his conviction.
The same goes for sexual criminals, there simply is no rehabilitating people like that. A perfect example is
this psychopath in Cleveland. He was convicted of a rape in 1989, did 15 years in prison, and because he "served his time", was released to live among the civilized people. When are we, as a society, going to stop allowing these people to live among us? I'd imagine it would be a pretty safe bet that if someone knew they would die fairly quickly when sentenced to death, the death penalty would be more of a deterrent.
Originally Posted by
flyandive
In the case of John Allen Muhammad, in the name of peace, the situation probably would have been better if he had been shot on the spot, gun in hand, guilt unquestionable, otherwise stuffed down a very deep dark hole never to return.
So basically he is not due his trial? It sounds to me, what you are actually saying is, "THAT MAN HAS A GUN, he has to be guilty!" I have an AR-15 similar to the one used in the attacks, so by your line of thinking, I could have been on my way home from the range, but stopped and assigned "unquestionable guilt". Some of us who own guns ARE actually responsible and normal folks.
