4 Officers shot near Lakewood WA

[Osteomata]

Wait, are you seriously saying that we should let this thread return to the original topic, and then you go back ten minutes later and edit your response to ADD another parapraph in defense of your opinions? Seriously?

I ask again, who will determine which of these criminals is "beyond redemption" and therefore should be subject to execution? Might it be the same flawed judges, lawyers and law enforcement officers that you mentioned in a previous post?

Your 20 year example is silly. Of course you pick the most extreme examples and highlight them as if they are the norm. The overwhelming majority of executed prisoners die at the hands of the state WELL before your arbitrary 20 year mark.

And if we do away with the life without parole and simply make the death penalty "a bit more difficult", doesn't the "a bit more difficult" part of that statement directly imply a bit more protection from abuse, i.e., more due process protection? Or should we proceed directly from trial to execution ala your original argument?

And in regards to this, I have no desire or aspirations what-so-ever to any position of power and I certainly don't advocate anyone, let alone the government, having the power of summary execution. I just feel that if someone is beyond redemption, why wast the time, effort, and resources to lock them in a cell and let them live out their life? You get convicted, you get one appeal, then you serve your sentence. If it's a death sentence, they are put to death and not put in jail for another 20 plus years before the sentence is carried out. And I think a life sentence, especially life without parole, is just counterproductive. Do away with the life without parole option and just make it a bit more difficult to attain the death penalty. Just if the death penalty is still called for after the appeal is settled, actually carry it out.

[don moore]

were is HOT WASBI JUNKY when you need him.

[circmand]

Wait, are you seriously saying that we should let this thread return to the original topic, and then you go back ten minutes later and edit your response to ADD another parapraph in defense of your opinions? Seriously?

I ask again, who will determine which of these criminals is "beyond redemption" and therefore should be subject to execution? Might it be the same flawed judges, lawyers and law enforcement officers that you mentioned in a previous post?

Your 20 year example is silly. Of course you pick the most extreme examples and highlight them as if they are the norm. The overwhelming majority of executed prisoners die at the hands of the state WELL before your arbitrary 20 year mark.

And if we do away with the life without parole and simply make the death penalty "a bit more difficult", doesn't the "a bit more difficult" part of that statement directly imply a bit more protection from abuse, i.e., more due process protection? Or should we proceed directly from trial to execution ala your original argument?

Very few state do a quick death penalty, some states do not do it at all and then 1 idiot governor can pardon murders, see this case, and see Wisconsin I beleive where he took everyone off death row so that even though the state and its process allow it 1 person corrupted it. Those people the system condemned to death now no longer face their rightful penalty and cannot have it reimposed unless they kill again. This idiot was given life in prison and then a few people say oh thats to harsh and parole him and what happens 4 more dead.