Botched execution....blah blah blah so what.....did he care about his victims to give them a good death?

Bob wrote:

PkrBum wrote:http://m.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/04/30/why-were-the-two-inmates-in-oklahoma-on-death-row-in-the-first-place/

Almost 15 years ago,on June 3,1999,Clayton Lockett,23,Shawn Mathis,26,and Alfonzo LaRon Veasey Lockett,17,planned on robbing Bobby Lee Bornt,23,at his house in Perry,Okla.

They tied up Bornt and beat him. Bornt’s nine-month-old son was present.

Stephanie Neiman,18,was dropping off her friend Summer Bradshaw at that house,and Lockett and his accomplices tried to take the keys to her new Chevy truck. Neiman,who graduated from high school only two weeks earlier,fought back,and the men covered her mouth with duct tape and beat and sexually assualted her. They also covered her 18-year-old friend’s mouth with duct tape,and beat and sexually assaulted her. Both were abducted,along with Bornt and his son. Lockett and his accomplices drove the four people they kidnapped west of Ponca City. Lockett asked Neiman if she planned to call the police. She would not say no, and Mathis spent 20 minutes digging a grave over which Lockett shot Neiman twice with a sawed-off 12-gauge shotgun, the three other victims later told authorities.

I bet thse goddamn little bitches seduced these boys.  It's her own fucking fault they had to kill her.  She gave them no choice.
It's a damn shame they were ever put on trial to start with.  Their great great great great grandfathers were slaves goddamnit.  We need to cut them some slack because of it.  If your great great great great grandfather was a slave you'd want to rape and kill some honkies too.

Wordslinger wrote:What's this debate really about?  The correctness of death penalties, the need for them?

The classic argument for having a death penalty is that it will act as a deterrent to people contemplating doing murder.

But the arguments in opposition to that are quite believable.  And nobody, virtually nobody convicted of murder on death row awaiting execution, even paused while involved in the crime that got them a death penalty, to consider what might happen.

The death penalty for murder, has never been much of a deterrent.

If having a death penalty isn't a deterrent, then what good is it?

You want to really punish a killer?  Let him or her rot until they succumb to natural causes.

We don't need to prove the American government is capable of killing.  Hell, they do that all the time!

Screw Amerika Inc!!!

Wordslinger wrote:What's this debate really about?  The correctness of death penalties, the need for them?

The classic argument for having a death penalty is that it will act as a deterrent to people contemplating doing murder.

But the arguments in opposition to that are quite believable.  And nobody, virtually nobody convicted of murder on death row awaiting execution, even paused while involved in the crime that got them a death penalty, to consider what might happen.

The death penalty for murder, has never been much of a deterrent.

If having a death penalty isn't a deterrent, then what good is it?

You want to really punish a killer?  Let him or her rot until they succumb to natural causes.

We don't need to prove the American government is capable of killing.  Hell, they do that all the time!

Screw Amerika Inc!!!

Markle wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:What's this debate really about?  The correctness of death penalties, the need for them?

The classic argument for having a death penalty is that it will act as a deterrent to people contemplating doing murder.

But the arguments in opposition to that are quite believable.  And nobody, virtually nobody convicted of murder on death row awaiting execution, even paused while involved in the crime that got them a death penalty, to consider what might happen.

The death penalty for murder, has never been much of a deterrent.

If having a death penalty isn't a deterrent, then what good is it?

You want to really punish a killer?  Let him or her rot until they succumb to natural causes.

We don't need to prove the American government is capable of killing.  Hell, they do that all the time!

Screw Amerika Inc!!!

So you admit it IS a deterrent.  THEN you say it isn't....  Not surprised, I understand those drugs can have terrible side effects.

PkrBum wrote:http://m.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/04/30/why-were-the-two-inmates-in-oklahoma-on-death-row-in-the-first-place/

Almost 15 years ago,on June 3,1999,Clayton Lockett,23,Shawn Mathis,26,and Alfonzo LaRon Veasey Lockett,17,planned on robbing Bobby Lee Bornt,23,at his house in Perry,Okla.

They tied up Bornt and beat him. Bornt’s nine-month-old son was present.

Stephanie Neiman,18,was dropping off her friend Summer Bradshaw at that house,and Lockett and his accomplices tried to take the keys to her new Chevy truck. Neiman,who graduated from high school only two weeks earlier,fought back,and the men covered her mouth with duct tape and beat and sexually assualted her. They also covered her 18-year-old friend’s mouth with duct tape,and beat and sexually assaulted her. Both were abducted,along with Bornt and his son. Lockett and his accomplices drove the four people they kidnapped west of Ponca City. Lockett asked Neiman if she planned to call the police. She would not say no, and Mathis spent 20 minutes digging a grave over which Lockett shot Neiman twice with a sawed-off 12-gauge shotgun, the three other victims later told authorities.

Wordslinger wrote:

Markle wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:What's this debate really about?  The correctness of death penalties, the need for them?

The classic argument for having a death penalty is that it will act as a deterrent to people contemplating doing murder.

But the arguments in opposition to that are quite believable.  And nobody, virtually nobody convicted of murder on death row awaiting execution, even paused while involved in the crime that got them a death penalty, to consider what might happen.

The death penalty for murder, has never been much of a deterrent.

If having a death penalty isn't a deterrent, then what good is it?

You want to really punish a killer?  Let him or her rot until they succumb to natural causes.

We don't need to prove the American government is capable of killing.  Hell, they do that all the time!

Screw Amerika Inc!!!

So you admit it IS a deterrent.  THEN you say it isn't....  Not surprised, I understand those drugs can have terrible side effects.

You really are delusional:  I never stated that the death penalty served as much of a deterrent.  I said:  "the classic argument for having a death penalty is that it will act as a deterrent to people contemplating doing murder.  Then I pointed out that the facts are, that nobody, virtually nobody convicted of murder and on death row awaiting execution, even paused for a moment to consider the cost[/b], while involved in the crime that got them a death penalty.

Once again you come across as a very confused, frustrated little boy.