State House Votes To Abolish Death Penalty

The state House of Representatives voted to abolish the death penalty on Wednesday - the fourth anniversary of the execution of serial killer Michael Ross - and instead impose life in prison without the possibility of release. Full Story
Abolish The Fed

Brooklyn, NY

#558 Jun 18, 2009
The state house should vote to abolish itself.
Abolish The Fed

Brooklyn, NY

#559 Jun 18, 2009
DCK wrote:
<quoted text>The execution of a murderer is not compensation, it is the pursuit of justice. There are two approaches to justice for murder. In one approach, you bring the murder victim back to life. Although the murderer would still come out ahead, at least the murderer and the victim would still be in the same status. With the other approach you put the murderer into the same status as the victim. Again, the murderer still comes out ahead, but at least the murderer and the victim are in the same status.
What do you do when corrupt police and politicians lock up and sentence to death innocent people? Shall we try them and sentence them to death as well?
koz

Broadview Heights, OH

#560 Jun 18, 2009
JRobert wrote:
You cannot justify the state killing an innocent man because others have been murdered.
That is why I haven't justified it. On the other hand you justify the abandonment of the pursuit of justice and the murder of hundreds of peple just to suit your personal flawed evaluation of the risks of human error.
koz

Broadview Heights, OH

#561 Jun 18, 2009
Abolish The Fed wrote:
What do you do when corrupt police and politicians lock up and sentence to death innocent people? Shall we try them and sentence them to death as well?
Certainly. Why would there be any question about that?

“deteriorata”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#562 Jun 18, 2009
koz wrote:
<quoted text>Certainly. Why would there be any question about that?
Where do you get this ignorance??

Politicians and police do not sentence or execute criminals.

Politicians can enact a statue for the DP.

Police charge people with crimes and get evidence.

Judges, prosecutors, and juries are responsible for sentencing. Dept of Corrections conduct executions.

The politicians and police do not execute criminals.

Your entire premise is patently absurd. Are you capable of the thought required to debate the subject?? It appears not.
JRobert

Avon, CT

#563 Jun 18, 2009
koz wrote:
<quoted text>That is why I haven't justified it. On the other hand you justify the abandonment of the pursuit of justice and the murder of hundreds of peple just to suit your personal flawed evaluation of the risks of human error.
So you claim our justice system and our police are perfect and error free?

Since that would be a foolish claim, it would also be foolish to claim it's justice when an innocent man is inevitably executed.
koz

Shippingport, PA

#564 Jun 19, 2009
JRobert wrote:
So you claim our justice system and our police are perfect and error free?
As you already know, I have made no such claim. All human activity and inactivity provides a risk of death for people who are not murderers. The execution of murderers simply increases the risk for murderers while adding a tiny risk for those of us who choose to take that risk. You seem to wish to believe that the only risk of death for the innocent is from accidental execution.
Since that would be a foolish claim, it would also be foolish to claim it's justice when an innocent man is inevitably executed.
Justice is never achieved when a murderer is executed, because the murderer always comes out ahead. If an innocent man is ever executed, then it would not be just in that particular case. As it is not just when a previously convicted murderer kills again. The difference is that one event is theoretical while the other event has happened more than 400 times and continues to happen. I am more concerned about real deaths than I am about theoretical deaths.
koz

Shippingport, PA

#565 Jun 19, 2009
Zonker wrote:
Where do you get this ignorance?
No ignorance was in my possession when I answered the question. You seem to have plenty, but I don't want any of it.
JRobert

Newington, CT

#566 Jun 19, 2009
koz wrote:
<quoted text>As you already know, I have made no such claim. All human activity and inactivity provides a risk of death for people who are not murderers. The execution of murderers simply increases the risk for murderers while adding a tiny risk for those of us who choose to take that risk. You seem to wish to believe that the only risk of death for the innocent is from accidental execution.
<quoted text>Justice is never achieved when a murderer is executed, because the murderer always comes out ahead. If an innocent man is ever executed, then it would not be just in that particular case. As it is not just when a previously convicted murderer kills again. The difference is that one event is theoretical while the other event has happened more than 400 times and continues to happen. I am more concerned about real deaths than I am about theoretical deaths.
Wrong again. Since you've admitted that our justice system and the police are not perfect, it can't be "theoretical" that an occasional innocent man will be executed.

And you're being ridiculous when you attempt to include the state execution of an innocent man into the category of "accidental" deaths.
JRobert

Newington, CT

#567 Jun 19, 2009
P.S. BTW, the state execution of an innocent man would be less accurately described as an "accident", and more accurately (but not perfectly) described as "negligent homicide."
Sumie

Sugar Land, TX

#568 Jun 19, 2009
JRobert wrote:
P.S. BTW, the state execution of an innocent man would be less accurately described as an "accident", and more accurately (but not perfectly) described as "negligent homicide."
Some might even describe it as "dangerously close to simple murder."
JRobert

Newington, CT

#569 Jun 19, 2009
Sumie wrote:
<quoted text>
Some might even describe it as "dangerously close to simple murder."
In the case of police or prosecutors who deliberately abuse the system (out of bias or for personal gain) it would be absolutely be murder.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of police or prosecutors who are willing to do that. The legal persecution of Connecticut's Peter Reilly proves that.
koz

Shippingport, PA

#570 Jun 19, 2009
JRobert wrote:
Since you've admitted that our justice system and the police are not perfect, it can't be "theoretical" that an occasional innocent man will be executed.
Most low probability events remain theoretical. That is because only so many things can happen, but an almost infinate number of low probability events can be imagined.
you're being ridiculous when you attempt to include the state execution of an innocent man into the category of "accidental" deaths.
I didn't "attempt" any such thing. I just pointed out a fact that you like only when it suits you. The intent of an execution for murder is to execute the murderer. If, as you have pointed out may happen someday, the wrong person is executed due to human error, that is an accident. Do you have some weird definitation of what an accident is?
koz

Shippingport, PA

#571 Jun 19, 2009
JRobert wrote:
In the case of police or prosecutors who deliberately abuse the system (out of bias or for personal gain) it would be absolutely be murder.
Your definition of murder is too broad. It could be negligent manslaughter.
koz

Shippingport, PA

#572 Jun 19, 2009
JRobert wrote:
P.S. BTW, the state execution of an innocent man would be less accurately described as an "accident", and more accurately (but not perfectly) described as "negligent homicide."
That would depend on the intent and the degree of error. But in common discussion, most if not all, cases of "negligent homicide" would be described as accidents. The terms are not mutually exclusive.
JRobert

United States

#573 Jun 19, 2009
koz wrote:
<quoted text>Most low probability events remain theoretical. That is because only so many things can happen, but an almost infinate number of low probability events can be imagined.
<quoted text>I didn't "attempt" any such thing. I just pointed out a fact that you like only when it suits you. The intent of an execution for murder is to execute the murderer. If, as you have pointed out may happen someday, the wrong person is executed due to human error, that is an accident. Do you have some weird definitation of what an accident is?
I'm sure it makes you feel better to call the execution of an innocent man an "accident."

But your callous, repugnant attitude is no different than the auto manufacturers who use statistical probability to decide what is an "acceptable" number of deaths and maiming to save money when they build a car.
koz

Shippingport, PA

#574 Jun 19, 2009
JRobert wrote:
I'm sure it makes you feel better to call the execution of an innocent man an "accident."
Why are you sure of that? Do you feel better if a person's death is due to an accident? How do you feel about the more than 400 people who have been killed by murderers who were not executed after their first murder conviction?
JRobert

United States

#575 Jun 19, 2009
koz wrote:
<quoted text>Why are you sure of that? Do you feel better if a person's death is due to an accident? How do you feel about the more than 400 people who have been killed by murderers who were not executed after their first murder conviction?
You use the euphemism of "accident" to justify the state killing an innocent man as a byproduct of satisfying your blood lust.

So, no, I'm not just "sure" it makes you feel better to call it an "accident"...I'm 100% CERTAIN.
Tango one forty niner

Hartford, CT

#576 Jun 19, 2009
Never Forget wrote:
Do you remember why they strengthened the death penalty 10 years ago?
His name was Brian Aselton.
Brian was the 26 year old Police Officer from East Hartford who was shot point blank in the head by Alex Sostre who had a rap sheet a mile long. Sostre said he would never go back to prison again and would kill any cop who tried to stop him.
Never forget State Trooper Russell Bagshaw.
Bagshaw was murdered in 1991 when he was shot (16 rounds in six seconds) by Terry Johnson during an attempted burglary at the Land and Sea Sports Center in North Windham. Johnson “expressed satisfaction with the murder" in conversations after the fact.
The jury sentenced Johnson to death. The Connecticut State Supreme Court overturned that sentence and gave Johnson a life term because the crime really wasn’t “especially cruel and heinous” enough for the Court’s liking.
The Court reasoned that because Trooper Bagshaw remained conscious for ONLY five to ninety seconds and that he ONLY lived between one and fifteen minutes after being shot while drowning in his own blood that “There was no evidence that the defendant (Johnson) had a quicker or less painful method available to him to cause death faster or with less pain.” Therefore it wasn’t “especially cruel and heinous” and did not warrant the death penalty.
If criminals of this statue know that killing a police officer was punishable by death I do believe it would be a deterrent.
How many of you anti-death penalty people out there would go to work every day knowing it could be your last.
Yea, the cops were killed in the line of duty which is rare and probably were not very well trained. Yes, we can honor them by their dumbness and highways named after them.

But what we can't never forget is those two White scumbags in Cheshire who raped and murdered 3 innocent lives and forever mared Cheshire.

I don't believe in the death penalty because for the State of CT to kill someone for revenge for those who were left behind, serves no purpose. I pay State taxes and hate the thought that my hard earned tax dollars is used to kill someone. That to me is creepy. I trust in God, and only God is in control.
koz

Shippingport, PA

#577 Jun 19, 2009
JRobert wrote:
You use the euphemism of "accident" to justify the state killing an innocent man as a byproduct of satisfying your blood lust.
I have no blood lust to satisfy. If I did, I would satisfy it personally. That is the type of person I am. But I have read about the things that many murderers have done. Execution is a walk in the park compared to what the victims suffered. Killing the murderers is merely an apporach to justice, because they are always treated so much better than their victims. For example, they are not skinned alive or raped multiple times before they are killed. As for an accidental death, the last time I checked, a person killed accidentally is just as dead as a person who is killed any other way. In fact, many accidental deaths are much more horrific than the merciful executions that are performed today. If you have watched anyone die of cancer, those deaths are also much worst than US executions. So no "euphemism" is involved in calling an accidental death what it is.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Connecticut Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Danbury High School Teacher's sexual relationsh... (Jun '09) Wed jflutopia 3
Gang Stalking in Guilford, CT Sep 4 Citizen 7
Find all students who are in Connecticut Aug 30 Mr Black 1
Connecticut's religiously intolerant history, P... (Nov '13) Aug 29 RevKen 5
2 couples, 2 paths (Jan '11) Aug 28 Sir Samuel 66
Slumber party consultant (Jul '10) Aug '14 curious 8
Ruling sparks debate on retroactive gay rights Aug '14 gv go in zee sewer 37
•••

Connecticut People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••