I can't help but think about the victims - the people these inmates murdered - when I read the arguments about lethal injections. The VICTIMS are the ones who should be first and foremost in our minds when executing these criminals. For God's sake - do you think the murderers took their victims feelings, comfort level, and pain thresholds into consideration when they ended their lives? And what about the unending torturous pain that the victims loved ones have to live with?

Here in north Idaho we are trying Joseph Duncan for capital murder in a child abduction/torture/murder/porno­graphy rampage. He stalked a family with 2 small children and waited to strike. Then he attacked one night catching the adults off guard. He bound the adults and one teenage boy and then murdered them each (3 people) with a common claw hammer. He then took the 2 children, a young boy and girl with him to his camp ground across state lines. There he raped them both and videotaped his actions. He then murdered the boy by torture and mutilated his body. He was caught before he did the young girl in.

He had a long history of violent sex crimes against children. He was treated instead of being severely punished and kept away from society. It turns out that he had killed before as well. He now wants to plea bargain to avoid the death penalty. The plea made through his attorneys was that he would plead guilty if he got life in prison. If not they would make the little girl take the stand and torture her some more.

This is the juncture our legal system is at. It is greatly weighted in favor of the criminal mind at the cost of a peace loving society. The tenet that people are considered innocent until proven otherwise is flawed. People should be considered honest until it is proven they are lying. They should be expected to tell their attorneys the truth. If they admit their crimes to their attorneys it should be incumbent on their attorneys to divulge that information. We should not be in the business of defending the guilty.

So how exactly do you propose that execution witnesses practice keeping the victim "first and foremost in our minds" during the actual execution? Light up their names in neon behind the condemned? Have the prison siren blare out the deceased's name in morse code? Just wondering, since I see a rant long on emotion and very short on any actual substance.

I agree with your sentiment, xxysyndrome.

I expecially love it that's it's always the god-lovers who cry for blood with the most turgid self-righteousness and indignation.

Why is it that people become most certain about their righteousness when someone is getting killed? All other decisions in life are complex and difficult--ah, but deciding to kill someone is easy and clear!

The truth is, people tend to feel more pleasure and more fulfillment when making decisions based on emotions rather than rationality; and emotional decisions are so sweet when they have nothing to do with us personally, i.e., when being right or wrong will have no effect on us personally.

I see your comment as long on sarcasm and devoid of any understanding of my point... I only wanted to express my disillusionment with such concern and debate over the comfort level of the person being executed when the person being executed most definitely showed no mercy for his or her victim. I'm with Justice Scalia..."Where is it written that the state must choose the least painful method?" I have never been a witness to an execution - but if I had to be one, I suppose it would be helpful to be reminded, perhaps by loved ones or even by photos or videos - immediately before it was carried out - of the person or persons whose lives were taken first.

The way I see it capitol punishemnt as it's carried out, or not, in America is terminally flawed.

We have the death penalty but it can take years to enforce it.

The cost of keeping inmates long enough to actually put them to death is incredibly high.

The death penalty has been shown to be no more effective in preventing first time offenders then it has in preventing repeat offenders.

At the end of the day killing a person who has committed a heinous crime truly serves no purpose and I challenge anyone reading to list one that is legitimate or which cannot be prempted by reaching these criminals before they've committed a capitol offense.

I propose a reorginization of the death penalty. Select by national or state wide vote which offenses warrant death. Then make that death immediate and impervious to appeal.

Or we could leave it to the survivors of the crime. If the families of the victim feel death should be the penalty after a criminal has been convicted then it should not only be their sole decision and acted upon immediately but it should be carried out by the families who have enforced it.

Why should we put the burden on prison officials to kill a man when those howling for blood are the families?

Oh and screw least painful method of death. The death should match the crime in every explicit detail. Being found guilty of a crime punishable by death should strip a person of their inherent rights as not just a human being but a legal citizen of the United States.

If a person takes it upon themselves to butcher another human being they've obviously reduced that person to sub-human standards and should be treated in kind when being executed.

If we're not going to reorginize the death penalty to match these guidlines what is the point of having it at all?

While I do not have a problem with the death penalty, I do have a major problem with our "justice" system. We are finding many people wrongly convicted by the system who were in fact innocent. "Persecuters" frequently do not care if they have the guilty person, just that they have a person who they can convict to add to their "record" I was on a federal grand jury for two years (every friday) and I saw some of the tricks and lies used by federal prosecutors attempting to gain an indictment, that it made me ill. What was even worse were the morons who were serving with me who made comments like "If they were not guilty, they would not be coming before us" or "just give them the indictment and let them find out in court if they are guilty or not".. Yes a federal grand jury would indict a ham sandwich. If the crime is especially terrible, and (this is the crux) the person can be found guilty with out ANY doubt, then a swift and speedy execution is called for. I could care less if they person experienced some discomfort. But.. if there is any room for doubt, or if there is not overwhelming evidence as to guilt, then life in prison WITHOUT any chance of parole, and put into solitary confinement. I simply do not trust the prosecutors who have been shown over and over to have put innocent people into prison, so that they could use them a stepping stones to higher office. I feel strongly that if a prosecutor can be shown to have withheld evidence, or in any other way put an innocent person into prison so that they could just obtain a conviction..that prosecutor should serve the same sentence as the wrongly convicted person received. I've seen it, and I know that this happens way to often.

I, too, share your concern about burdening prison officials with the job of carrying out executions...I suppose it would be ok to let the families of the victims carry the punishment out (under supervision) if they would want to...however, I don't think it should be required - they've probably suffered enough agony already.

I also agree that the cost associated with keeping these murderers alive until execution can be carried out is much too high...but not as high as it would be to support them for life if execution could never be carried out. It's one or the other...if they are murderers they need to be permanently kept out of our society to prevent them from repeating the crime.

Let me say that I don't think any death sentence should be taken lightly...we must be certain of guilt...I happen to like the way Governor Mike Huckabee answered the question he was posed during the YouTube debates on this subject...(it can be found on YouTube if you search Huckabee and death penalty)...he said it was the most difficult thing he ever had to do as Governor.

"I, too, share your concern about burdening prison officials with the job of carrying out executions...I suppose it would be ok to let the families of the victims carry the punishment out (under supervision) if they would want to...however, I don't think it should be required - they've probably suffered enough agony already."

-cricket

But you see that's exactly the point. If the victims families don't want to do it themselves they have no business asking anyone else to do it for them. If they're not enraged enough to take someone esle life then surely they see killing another person in order to punish them for doing the exact same thing is not only pointless but ultimately serves no greater purpose.

"I also agree that the cost associated with keeping these murderers alive until execution can be carried out is much too high...but not as high as it would be to support them for life if execution could never be carried out. It's one or the other...if they are murderers they need to be permanently kept out of our society to prevent them from repeating the crime."

-cricket

This is why the question of capitol punishment should not be exclusive. It brings to mind many other questions and ultimately sheds light on the fact that prisons in general are no more effective in solving the problem of crime then execution.

Imprisonment and Execution are merely quick fixes for a much bigger problem that we as a nation are too lazy to deal with properly. Why are we spending billions of dolars to imprison and eventually execute criminals rather then researching legitimate ways to prevent crime before it begins?

If we truly want prison to deter potential crimes from happening then we ought to strip those convicted of rights as human beings. We should either put these people into prisons where death is certain or remove the prison system completely in favor of something else. Would you rob a liquor store if you knew you'd starve to death in prison? Would you break any law requiring imprisonment if you knew it meant dying of exposure to the elements? Being murdered by a fellow inmate? Dying of infectious disease? Now these are real reasons not to break the law.

And this ridiculous idea that prisons are there to reform criminals is absolute bull shit so there goes that argument.

The same should go for executions. Either do them immediately following a sentence or don't bother to at all.

As for the justice system falsely convicting someone well frankly the odds are in favor of this happening as an exception to the rule and do not make up a common practice in this country.

Michael,

This was like reading one of my own posts.

I even use "persecutors" as, it seems so much more accurate.

We see them harping about someone being guilty EVEN AFTER they're been PROVEN innocent.

These evil power freaks need to pay a price.

The idea that society is too lazy to solve the crime problem is bull. Those same people would probably be too lazy to claim a winning lottery ticket. (Which is what solving the crime problem amounts to)

It is interesting how the prisoners are portrayed as victims when in fact they are the victimizer. It is interesting how society and the criminal justice system are portrayed as the only actor on the stage.

Criminals do make choices and set events in motion that police, prosecuters and society must respond to. The criminal made a calculated decision to rob, rape murder etc and destroy another life(s) in the process. The irony is that the criminal's definition of cruel when applied to himself, is always far less than the cruelty and violence he inflicted on the victim.

Therapy would not have stopped John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy.