Does the cockroach in human form John Evander Couey deserve the death penalty?

[jamesrage]

Does the cockroach in human form John Evander Couey deserve the death penalty and should he receive the death penalty?

This cockroach abducted a little a 9 year old girl and repeatedly raped her.Then he tied her wrist with speaker wire put her in a garbage bags while she was still alive and her buried her in ground her where she suffocated to death.

Hopefully the judge does not spit on the little girl by pulling a Judge Edward Cashman.Hopefully he sentences that cockroach to death with no appeals.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

It doesn't matter whether or not he deserves the death penalty-- whether or not he is capable of moral responsibility for his actions.

What matters is that we deserve to live in a society that does not allow men like him to live.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

It doesn't matter whether or not he deserves the death penalty

If you care about justice, it ALWAYS matters.

-- whether or not he is capable of moral responsibility for his actions.

Here I can agree, insanity my ***, we know you're insane if you killed someone, still gotta die.

What matters is that we deserve to live in a society that does not allow men like him to live.

I am not so sure we are that deserving a society, but that is the ideal we should strive for. Castration is too good for slime like that, assuming he of course is guilty of these allegations.

 

[Kandahar]

Hopefully the judge does not spit on the little girl by pulling a Judge Edward Cashman.Hopefully he sentences that cockroach to death with no appeals.

So you're against due process? Straight to execution? Perhaps you'd be more comfortable living in Iran. And it's charming to see you using the same terminology that they used during the Rwandan genocide.

 

[jamesrage]

So you're against due process? Straight to execution? Perhaps you'd be more comfortable living in Iran.

He has already been found guilty of the crime and the jury recommended the death penalty.What I am against is judges spitting on the on the victims by handing out lenient sentences to murderers and or rapist.

And it's charming to see you using the same terminology that they used during the Rwandan genocide.

So your saying the victims of the Rwandan genocide and child molesters/rapist who murdered innocent children?Seeing you make some bull **** comparison to what I call a child rapist who murdered a little child to alleged terminology used during the Rwandan genocide must mean that you think of those victims as child raping murderers.

 

[Kandahar]

He has already been found guilty of the crime and the jury recommended the death penalty.What I am against is judges spitting on the on the victims by handing out lenient sentences to murderers and or rapist.

You said that you wanted him sentenced to death with no appeals, as though the judge even has the power to do that. What exactly is your problem with the appeals process? It exists for a reason: to ensure everyone a fair trial.

So your saying the victims of the Rwandan genocide and child molesters/rapist who murdered innocent children?Seeing you make some bull **** comparison to what I call a child rapist who murdered a little child to alleged terminology used during the Rwandan genocide must mean that you think of those victims as child raping murderers.

LOL. Yes James. That is what I was saying. :lol:

 

[Cephus]

You said that you wanted him sentenced to death with no appeals, as though the judge even has the power to do that. What exactly is your problem with the appeals process? It exists for a reason: to ensure everyone a fair trial.

And he's had one. Next, he gets a manditory appeal. After that though, unless he can actually do something to demonstrate he's factually innocent of the crime, why keep the endless appeals going? Is there any rational reason to allow twice-convicted murderers to keep appealing even though there is no reason whatsoever to think they are factually innocent of the crime?

Or maybe you just like wasting the public's money on worthless efforts?

 

[Kandahar]

And he's had one. Next, he gets a manditory appeal. After that though, unless he can actually do something to demonstrate he's factually innocent of the crime, why keep the endless appeals going? Is there any rational reason to allow twice-convicted murderers to keep appealing even though there is no reason whatsoever to think they are factually innocent of the crime?

Define "factually innocent" of the crime. Technically, ALL appeals are to determine factual innocence, or at least a reasonable doubt. If something was messed up during the original trial that could bring reasonable doubt to his guilt, then it's fair to give him his appeal.

Do you have so little faith in our justice system that you don't trust the appeals process to uphold his conviction if there's no reasonable doubt? If so, why are you so quick to trust the justice system to have reached the correct conclusion in the first place?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

If you care about justice, it ALWAYS matters.

Justice is in the eye of the beholder. If I think someone deserves to die, and their death means enough to me to risk it, I won't need the State to kill them for me.

The State, by its very nature, cannot deliver justice. It can only uphold order, which is all that I ask of it.

Here I can agree, insanity my ***, we know you're insane if you killed someone, still gotta die.

I'd argue with that one. Plenty of perfectly sane, rational reasons to kill someone, even in cold blood. There are more than a few that I openly approve of-- particularly for those people responsible for killing men like Couey.

It doesn't matter who orders a man's execution, or if it is legally sanctioned or not. There's still the one man who decides whether to pull the trigger or not, and he's just as much a killer as the man he's executing.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Rat Poison

Justice is in the eye of the beholder.

I don't think that is so. I believe there is an objective justice, just as there is an objective morality. I don't know what that is, but I think I can get pretty close, and I am damn proud of how close humanity has gotten.

If I think someone deserves to die, and their death means enough to me to risk it, I won't need the State to kill them for me.

Oh I don't disagree, I know I can be driven to violence. I could probably be driven to torture a man, which is a complete contradiction to my character, and my virtues. Its just that I hold the state to higher standards than I can expect from myself.

The State, by its very nature, cannot deliver justice. It can only uphold order, which is all that I ask of it

I completely disagree. The state, by its very nature, are the people, and I believe society will always get better at holding people accountable for their actions.

I can only hope that our judgment on what is a civil trespass also continue to improve.

I'd argue with that one. Plenty of perfectly sane, rational reasons to kill someone, even in cold blood. There are more than a few that I openly approve of-- particularly for those people responsible for killing men like Couey.

It doesn't matter who orders a man's execution, or if it is legally sanctioned or not. There's still the one man who decides whether to pull the trigger or not, and he's just as much a killer as the man he's executing.

Error on my behalf, meant to use the word murder. Which is a whole OTHER can of legislative worms. I know the man giving the order may not always be right, in fact in most cases I'm sure they've been wrong, while representing society. But I don't see that as a case for the subjectivity of justice.

 

[Edify_Always_In_All_Ways]

Does the cockroach in human form John Evander Couey deserve the death penalty and should he receive the death penalty?

This cockroach abducted a little a 9 year old girl and repeatedly raped her.Then he tied her wrist with speaker wire put her in a garbage bags while she was still alive and her buried her in ground her where she suffocated to death.

Hopefully the judge does not spit on the little girl by pulling a Judge Edward Cashman.Hopefully he sentences that cockroach to death with no appeals.

Hard... prison... labor... forever. Let him get his punishment from guards and inmates- and do something useful for society. Then, kill him if he refuses. I don't see why we execute so many while we can enslave them (sending money to the victim's family, perhaps?)

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Re: Rat Poison

It's just that I hold the state to higher standards than I can expect from myself.

I don't, because I know that the State is nothing more than an organization of men. It's a tool for focusing power. That's why I am wary of people who grant the State moral authority corresponding with their physical authority-- because that means that they are surrendering their powers of discernment along with the force and resources they grant to the government.

Error on my behalf, meant to use the word murder. Which is a whole OTHER can of legislative worms.

Yeah. See, there's a whole lot of killing that the law calls "murder" that I think ranges from the morally tolerable (private duelling) to the morally desirable (assisted suicide). And then there's people who can't tell the difference between "killing" and "murder", who make up all kinds of convoluted excuses for why their wars are somehow different and justified.

I know the man giving the order may not always be right, in fact in most cases I'm sure they've been wrong, while representing society. But I don't see that as a case for the subjectivity of justice.

That's not my point at all. It doesn't matter whether the order is wrong or right-- it's subjective anyway-- because it is still the triggerman's decision whether or not to obey the order. The orders are just part of his reasons for making that decision.

And that's my case for the subjectivity of justice. There may be laws, and legal principles the laws derive from, but those laws and legal ideals were written by men, they are interpreted by other men, and they are carried out by another group of men. Sometimes we agree with the outcome... and sometimes we don't.

 

[jamesrage]

You said that you wanted him sentenced to death with no appeals, as though the judge even has the power to do that. What exactly is your problem with the appeals process? It exists for a reason: to ensure everyone a fair trial.

Appeals exist in case someone was accidentally convicted of a crime they did not commit. Apppeals today seem to be nothing more than a tool by scumbag sympathizers to drive up the cost of executing a scumbag so that way they can claim that execution is more costly than life in prison.

LOL. Yes James. That is what I was saying. :lol:

Then why make a bull **** comparison of what I called a child raping murderer to to what victims of genocide may have allegedly been called?

 

[jamesrage]

Hard... prison... labor... forever. Let him get his punishment from guards and inmates- and do something useful for society. Then, kill him if he refuses. I don't see why we execute so many while we can enslave them (sending money to the victim's family, perhaps?)

Because of the scumbag sympathizers we can not have forced hard labor for criminals anymore.

 

[Kandahar]

Appeals exist in case someone was accidentally convicted of a crime they did not commit. Apppeals today seem to be nothing more than a tool by scumbag sympathizers to drive up the cost of executing a scumbag so that way they can claim that execution is more costly than life in prison.

Wrong. Death row convictions can and have been overturned when new evidence arises years after the original conviction. Try again.

 

[Cephus]

Define "factually innocent" of the crime. Technically, ALL appeals are to determine factual innocence, or at least a reasonable doubt.

Did not actually commit the crime, is factually innocent of the charges. A good percentage of appeals are based on technical issues, person X did not cross his 't' and dot his 'i', therefore let me go kind of nonsense.

If something was messed up during the original trial that could bring reasonable doubt to his guilt, then it's fair to give him his appeal.

Which is fine, if there is evidence that something went wrong. Most of these appeals though are just an attempt to delay the execution, not an attempt to see that justice is done. These people are guilty, they committed the crime, they just want to avoid punishment for it.

Do you have so little faith in our justice system that you don't trust the appeals process to uphold his conviction if there's no reasonable doubt? If so, why are you so quick to trust the justice system to have reached the correct conclusion in the first place?

There comes a point where it's just a legal maneuver to keep from dying and it wastes a lot of time and money that is completely unnecessary. Anti-DPers whine that the DP is too expensive, this is EXACTLY why, the endless appeals over absolutely nothing but not wanting to get their just execution is obscene. Once found guilty, once confirmed as guilty, the execution needs to go on as planned without all the legal wrangling and hand-wringing designed just to keep these worthless sacks of **** alive another day.

 

[Edify_Always_In_All_Ways]

Because of the scumbag sympathizers we can not have forced hard labor for criminals anymore.

In my opinion, it should be easier to pass than the death penalty.

:shock:

Wait- did I just agree with you? Arrrrrgh... I'm melting...

 

[jamesrage]

Wrong. Death row convictions can and have been overturned when new evidence arises years after the original conviction. Try again.

Considering the fact forensic technology is getting better I seriously doubt there will be that many convictions over turned in the future.

You still haven't answered my question in regards to why make a bull **** comparison of what I called a child raping murderer to to what victims of genocide may have allegedly been called?It seems any time someone wants some scumbag to really suffer for what they did the scumbag sympathizers make fallacious comparisons of innocent people to these scum.

 

[Kandahar]

Considering the fact forensic technology is getting better I seriously doubt there will be that many convictions over turned in the future.

If even one person is unjustly executed, that is too many...especially since executing them accomplishes nothing other than fulfilling your bloodlust. There is no credible evidence at all that the death penalty works as a deterrent.

If the death penalty actually improved society somehow, perhaps I would be more willing to tolerate the occasional error. But it doesn't.

 

[jamesrage]

If even one person is unjustly executed, that is too many....

What about the inmates trying to do their time and prison guards?A person behind bars for life has nothing to loose and therefore is a danger to everyone else around him.

especially since executing them accomplishes nothing other than fulfilling your bloodlust.

I have no blood lust,only a desire to see these scum pay for their crime.

Instead of putting yourself in that scumbags shoes, you should put yourself in the victim's shoes such as that poor little girl and imagine how terrified she was and what was going on in her mind as she was being kidnapped,held against her will, raped,tied up and buried in the ground and suffocated to death and imagine what was going on in her parents minds' when they found out what happened to their daughter.

There is no credible evidence at all that the death penalty works as a deterrent.

Which is why I am for less or no appeals.Because these days when someone gets the death penalty they will spend all their appeals and with the aid of rat lawyers they will not get executed until 10 or 20 years later,by the time that scumbag is executed everyone has almost or completely forgotten about the victim.

If the death penalty actually improved society somehow, perhaps I would be more willing to tolerate the occasional error. But it doesn't

According to you it doesn't.I believe it does improve society because it is one less murderer we have to care for.

 

[Cephus]

If even one person is unjustly executed, that is too many...especially since executing them accomplishes nothing other than fulfilling your bloodlust.

Sure it does, it cleans out the gene pool and gets rid of predators that have lost their right to breathe the same air as decent people.

There is no credible evidence at all that the death penalty works as a deterrent.

It's not supposed to be a deterrent. If it was, it would be called 'the death deterrent'. It is a punishment for those whose crimes are so heinous they do not deserve to remain alive.

Besides, it isn't like prison is a deterrent, look at the recidivism rate! The overwhelming majority of people who go to prison and are released GO BACK! You certainly can't say that for the DP. Not one person ever executed for their crimes commits another one.

If the death penalty actually improved society somehow, perhaps I would be more willing to tolerate the occasional error. But it doesn't.

I'm sorry that you don't see justice being served as improving society. What does? Building prisons everywhere for convicts that are never rehabilitated?

 

[Kandahar]

Sure it does, it cleans out the gene pool

If they're in a prison for the rest of their life, they won't be reproducing.

and gets rid of predators that have lost their right to breathe the same air as decent people.

Life in prison gets rid of them too...

It's not supposed to be a deterrent. If it was, it would be called 'the death deterrent'. It is a punishment for those whose crimes are so heinous they do not deserve to remain alive.

Then that is a completely emotional argument. I prefer reason.

Besides, it isn't like prison is a deterrent, look at the recidivism rate! The overwhelming majority of people who go to prison and are released GO BACK! You certainly can't say that for the DP. Not one person ever executed for their crimes commits another one.

If they aren't released then there won't be recidivism either.

I'm sorry that you don't see justice being served as improving society. What does? Building prisons everywhere for convicts that are never rehabilitated?

How about addressing some of the root causes of crime? We should end the war on drugs, and ensure everyone a quality education by implementing a school voucher system and ending the property-tax-based system of public school funding. That may not be as sexy as visualizing police arresting murderers, but it's much more effective.

 

[Cephus]

If they're in a prison for the rest of their life, they won't be reproducing.

It doesn't matter if they reproduce, the simple fact is that even people in LWOP can and do harm others, injure guards, kill other inmates, etc. A corpse doesn't.
Besides, you still have to house these slimebags, that's an awful lot of money, space, etc. that goes to keeping them alive whereas killing them and using their ashes for fertilizer is much, much cheaper.

How about addressing some of the root causes of crime? We should end the war on drugs, and ensure everyone a quality education by implementing a school voucher system and ending the property-tax-based system of public school funding. That may not be as sexy as visualizing police arresting murderers, but it's much more effective.

Yes, because of course the rich *NEVER* commit crimes, right?

 

[Duke]

Does the cockroach in human form John Evander Couey deserve the death penalty and should he receive the death penalty?

Does he deserve the death penalty? Yep. Should we be so kind as to give it to him? No. I support a fate worse than death: Life in prison.


Duke

 

[Kandahar]

It doesn't matter if they reproduce, the simple fact is that even people in LWOP can and do harm others, injure guards, kill other inmates, etc. A corpse doesn't.

Truly dangerous criminals often don't have much contact with guards or inmates.

Besides, you still have to house these slimebags, that's an awful lot of money, space, etc. that goes to keeping them alive whereas killing them and using their ashes for fertilizer is much, much cheaper.

Unless you're willing to abandon due process altogether, you're wrong. It's cheaper to keep someone in prison for life.

Yes, because of course the rich *NEVER* commit crimes, right?

Not nearly as often as the poor. Especially for violent crimes.