Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 29, 2008 at 12:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Except of course for the increasingly popular murder of unborn children.

Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on July 29, 2008 at 12:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I wonder where your "cost figures" came from? Sounds like a typical die-hard liberal who feels sorry for the criminal!

Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on July 29, 2008 at 12:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If killing is wrong for him, it should be wrong for you, me, us...as well. The death penalty is legal pre-meditated murder.

War is also pre-meditated murder and destroys innocent living children, their family, and village...and can cause abortion of unborn children and their mothers. Bombs can't tell the good from the bad.

Thou shalt not kill!

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on July 29, 2008 at 8:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I do agree that for the state to exempt itself from murder charges is an act of state dominion that is remarkable. Why is it that people who call themselves conservatives tend to be the ones who most love this state privilege?

Actually, this is one of many examples where conservative people institutionalize violence they wish to see committed and excuse themselves for their impulse. But the seeking of justice I can understand as an exception in the most extreme cases -- even though I do not think it is wise policy.

I do not understand how so many can stand by as we murder through carelessness, and cause the death of so many more people than the terrorists do in our war against terror.

In fact, I think terror is a reprisal caused by governments that find their own exceptions to the popularly condemned use of force in international matters. Individuals band together and execute the reprisal in the form of any type of strike they can manage.

When the state brands terrorists murderers for executing a reprisal against militarily caused deaths of their loved ones, it is an intentional mis-labeling, and seeks to lie and put blame elsewhere. They should brand both the military and governmental groups who were the original offenders AND the terrorists murderers.

Taking land from the residents to create the country of Israel, supporting a despot in a war as we supported Saddam against Iran in the Iran/Iraq War, or overthrowing Iran's government and installing the Shah and his violent secret police division are examples of violent acts we committed against others that create a terrorist backlash.

The beginning flaw is citizens claiming a state has rights to kill innocent people, or take property by force. This is far, far worse than even murder in the name of criminal justice. It is also far, far worse than claiming a pregnant woman's action to stop a pregnancy is murder.

What is amazing is that at least half of our citizens proclaim a right and a need to advance this cycle of violence in foreign countries that have not attacked us and have no plans to do so.

Posted by sandyman7 (anonymous) on July 29, 2008 at 8:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If your going to use the Bible, better keep it all in mind. GOD used his angels to wipe out whole cities that had gone over the edge with sin..He (GOD) gave us the ability to reason, and he says to follow the law....Just to let you know, we all have "opinions" as to what is right and wrong...Only GOD and his ruling at the end of time will matter.!!

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 29, 2008 at 11:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The justification for capital punishment comes from the recognition that an individual has a natural right to life as life is obtained through submission to the laws of nature. Having a natural right to life an individual has the right to defend that life. A murdered person does not lose that right by his inability to exercise the right to defend his life so society in pursuing capital punishment is only defending the right of the murdered individual.

It is only because rights are misunderstood and resulting laws designed to protect those rights misapplied that innocent people are convicted, either through willfulness or ignorance of courts and juries. If a person accused is innocent, how can reasonable doubt be established? In cases where it is clear that capital crimes have been committed capital punishment ought to be pursued as this only reflects society's recognition of natural rights. Capital punishment in these cases is not murder, it is self defense carried out on behalf of the victim by society. No right is lost to anyone. Society is only doing what it would have been obligated to do had society been present at the time of the crime. The issue is not one of prevention but protection of individual right to life.

Contrarily, not to defend the rights of a victim of capital crime is itself state supported defense of capital crime and is logically a violation of natural as well as civil rights of the victim.

Posted by Hambone (anonymous) on July 29, 2008 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Those of you that say capital punishment doesn't prevent murder, what do you recommend to prevent it? Don't tell me a jail sentance, because that doesn't prevent crime either, the jails stay full and there is still crime in the streets.
Knowing that I could face the death penalty is enough to prevent me from committing murder, so it at least prevents one person from doing it.
These murderers kill and think can get away with it. They know that the bleeding heart hippie liberals will take their side, and with a little luck they get off on a technicality, or at worst they live on the tax payers dime while they live it up in the big house. The only reason the death penalty doesn't prevent murder is that we don't use it enough. Start injecting these murderers once a week, lets free up some space in the prisons.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 29, 2008 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The only way to deter those who kill out of conscious choice to kill is to create in them whatever moral function they are lacking that allows them to kill. Probably about the same number of murders would occur if murder were not illegal. Figures from the World Health Organization show that abortion rates are similar in countries that allow abortion to abortion rates in countries where it is illegal. Most people don't want to kill others, only a few do.

Creating conscience in others may be an impossible thing to do.

Posted by Hambone (anonymous) on July 29, 2008 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 29, 2008 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Most people don't want to kill others, only a few do."

I believe that the world can do without the few that do.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 29, 2008 at 2:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We have a logical system of law that allows for that Hambone and I don't think we should abolish it either. I am only saying we should be aware of how that logic arises so our laws continue to be consistent. The purpose of our law is not to prevent crime, because that cannot be done, but to establish a system for protecting the rights of individuals. Until more people rediscover these principles of law we will continue to degrade as individuals and as a nation.

Posted by RobinBrownHayes (anonymous) on July 30, 2008 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Of course it's not going to deter murder. Atleast not until it's a guarantee that if you murder someone you don't have the chance to have the taxpayer take care of you. There should be certain murderous crimes that call for the death penalty every time that crime is committed. Such as 1st degree murder and also, rape of a child could fall in there too.

The only way these morons will get the picture is for their tiny little minds to be able to absorb the fact that they will die if they commit these crimes.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on July 30, 2008 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Out of recognition of the principle that government errs too often in it's determinations, we should abolish execution. EnKik's almost-perfect logical scenario is a victim of the imperfection of the government that delivers the remedy.

Life imprisonment in solitary confinement without benefit of parole is sufficient for the worst crimes, and a victim's relatives, or society's "gift" of closure by execution is not uniformly accepted as the best gift.

We currently use solitary confinement long-term for many crimes, and even against those simply involved in the crime of striking out for political purposes against our might as a country. The non-lethal penalty being used to address one man's natural right to survive another would be consistent.

I do not take this position out of respect for life, but out of respect for the inherent fallibility of government and those who choose government positions.

District attorneys, US attorneys, law enforcement officers, generals and soldiers all have careers, pensions and privileges that stem from the quality of the enactment of their roles, and these people are human, too. Their execution of their duties tend to be no more sterling than most men. It is inappropriate to saddle these men with the yoke of responsibility for execution any more than necessary.

Almost every use of execution is satisfied by perpetual solitary confinement for the most guilty and it is arguably even less humane than the shorter term fix. If it was a choice of solitary forever or a quick death the solitary would keep me straighter.

Unfortunately those who kill are not usually concerned they will be caught because of the same fallibility I mentioned above.

People who as Enkik suggests might kill out of a sense of natural justice are too often completely equal to what we prefer to call terrorists. Since we kill foreign nationals as a function of them simply being in the wrong place while we pursue our goals militarily, champions of their dead would have exactly the same right to enact such a penalty on our innocent citizens. Until we accept that system of logic our own justification for righting natural law through executions is a sham.

Posted by guy2co (anonymous) on July 30, 2008 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh some times there are things that we as a society do not fully agree to or support, but must do. War at times is necessary. For example if you look at war killing people, you must look at how many will be killed if you do not go to war. If we had not stopped Hitler, do you think he would just stop killing people. How about the people that Saddam killed, If we had signed a petition, do you think he would have stopped. What about the situation in Bosnia or the current situation in Africa. While it is not pleasant, sometimes society must stand up for those who cannot. Some say that we should only use the death sentence in extreme cases, while others say never use it. Who is going to pay to keep these criminals behind bars? We are. Why should I pay to feed a murderer? Everyone has opinions and in a way everyone is right. In an ideal world, innocent people would not be locked up, and world leaders would not kill, but that is not reallity. We as a society have laws and we as a society have punishments. I believe that the death penalty is something that we will argue over for years. I believe in it,and if someone killed a family member of mine, I'd probally go to court and try make sure they get the death sentence. That would be the only sentence that would save them from me! Because if the ever got out I would be there waiting!

Posted by Krogers (anonymous) on August 3, 2008 at 6:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

well said guy2co, that moved me brother.

yeahuhhuh, death by execution from being found guilty of murder is hardly an impulsive act, more one of great patience and diligence taking years to follow through, and rarely successful actually. How many people have been executed in MS?

yes there might have been a few innocent people convicted and executed wrongly, that's sad and our justice system will never be perfect as there are those that will always manipulate the system and those within the system. Murder is difficult to prosecute, as people can spin webs more complicated than spiders.

Far too many murders have gone unsolved, and far also far too many have been rightly convicted and not executed

with such a burden of proof to be laid upon the suspect what better way to try, convict and then execute those guilty of murder

I believe that capital punishment should include more than just premeditated murder knowing that it is wrong, but also to include armed robbery, armed and viscious rape and molestation, kidnapping that involves severe harm, and what about all the murders of the unborn, being born, and just born?

We cannot let it go and let it be common knowledge that murderous acts will go unjustly and severely punished. We must exact an equal punishment to the crime. Evil will flourish if good people do nothing.

Posted by Krogers (anonymous) on August 3, 2008 at 6:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

since 1957 there have been 25 executions in the State of MS

the last six have all been white males , since 1989 - all for murder

then back to 1957 or so 12 blacks males and 4 white males- some for rape, but most for murder

but the two years between 1955 and '57 there were 16 execitopms with some for rape, but most for murder

so that is a total of 41 executions between 1955 and 2008. That is not very many executions in my mind for the level of shootings, murders, rapes, armed robberies and violent crime that is going on these days.

it seems there is a correlating trend that as we reduce the number of executions we have more crime.

interesting

where have all those thousands been killed, ??? The author of the article state thousands??? What emotional nonsense on the author's part. Let's stick to the facts and admit all of our basic emotions that if any reasonable person, and we can only deal in the realm of reasonable people, that if there is a severe penalty then any reasonable person would think twice and NOT commit a heinous crime knowing appropriate punishment would be quickly coming. Of course an unreasonable person will not respond to behavioral modification same as a reasonable person, but we must make our social decisions based on most of us being reasonable.

Not that many people being executed compared to all the crime going on I would say. If a punishment is going to be used for prevention, then it must be utilized without exception and with full public knowledge, as horrible as it is. No reasonable person wants to kill another, but we must do something will all the UNreasonable people that will kill you.

Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on August 3, 2008 at 10:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Guy2 if you kill the person who killed your family member, after he served his time, that would make you the same as him...guilty of murder.

Our ability to not kill, even when we may really have the desire to do so, is what separates us from them.

Stop before you cross that line.

Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on August 3, 2008 at 11:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We are doing something with the unreasonable people...we put them in prison...that is, unless they have someone with pull who will help them get out of trouble.

The prison system needs to become self supportive instead of being like a resort hotel. I don't know why the prison system isn't turned over to the military, so that the prisoners can be trained just like soldiers are in bootcamps, with the exception of weaponry training. A big drill sargeant yelling in their ear, you're not at your moma's house now boy, get up and give me 50, about 5 a.m. every morning, right before the 5 mile run while wearing a heavy backpack, uniform, and Army boots.

Posted by RobinBrownHayes (anonymous) on August 5, 2008 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Peace007, That would be against their civil rights.

I remember several years ago when the State Police were called in because the prisoners at the county jail decided to riot because they didn't have cable TV and visitation more often, free phone calling privileges etc. I have to say that it was an amazing site to see the riot police march up State St. but it was all because they were being "treated unfairly"