why not death penalty?

Accused serial bomber Eric Robert Rudolph will avoid a possible death sentence by pleading guilty to a string of attacks in Alabama and Georgia, including a deadly blast during the 1996 Olympics, and several on abortion clinics.


I am for the death penalty when there is no doubt, beyond a reasonable doubt won't cut it, but this case seems to be playing politics because of the places he bombed.

It has been suggested by many prosecutors that if he went to trial a death sentence would be hard to get because of sympathetic "cultural views" of potential jurors because he bombed abortion clinics.

Seeing as this was pre-meditated I fail to see any justification for a plea bargain. This is domestic terrorism.

Thoughts

There should be certain cases where there is a mandatory death penalty sentence. No plea bargain, and appeal cannt reverse your sentence if you are truly guilty.

No death penalty.

The State taking a life means that I am doing it. I don't want to do it. I do not believe in "an eye for an eye" mentality.

Lock up, with no hope of parole, fine. Death penalty, no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

No death penalty.

The State taking a life means that I am doing it. I don't want to do it. I do not believe in "an eye for an eye" mentality.

Lock up, with no hope of parole, fine. Death penalty, no.

---

And I suppose you don't mind paying for these worthless bastards who didn't care about the people they killed ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RPerry

And I suppose you don't mind paying for these worthless bastards who didn't care about the people they killed ?

---

No, I don't. That's what it takes, I don't think the cost is a factor when we are discussing whether the State should take lives on my behalf.

I do object to paying for workshy bastards with the attitude "why should I get a job, I get as much in benefits". But that's another discussion.

I don't agree with the death penalty unless I know, without any doubt whatsoever, that the person in question is guilty of a heinous crime.

And as I've said before, it would require some pretty massive evidence, and pretty much me seeing the crime firsthand for me to agree with any death sentence. This because I think that there are far too many instances where innocent people have been executed.

However, if others get executed for less, when this bloke doesn't, then that's a severe breach of protocol by the court. Politics shouldn't be allowed to interfere with justice on this level.

Next time it might as well be someone who dies because of the same people, if they are allowed that kind of power.

J2-

Why do you think in this case life is the way to go? Please be honest if it has anything to do with the fact that it was abortion clinics he bombed.
I do appreciate you are in no way for him going unpunished, just wonder why no death.


@ all

I appreciate the anti death sentence moral view. I myself have some reservations about it but they do tend to be about the current system being too open to mistakes. I don't view it as a deterrent at all. It is punishment.
That said the thread is about the direct question I asked J2, which leads to me wondering if there is a view that it's "almost" ok to kill if it's "for the right cause"...this cause being the wish to ban abortions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

@ all

I appreciate the anti death sentence moral view. I myself have some reservations about it but they do tend to be about the current system being too open to mistakes. I don't view it as a deterrent at all. It is punishment.
That said the thread is about the direct question I asked J2, which leads to me wondering if there is a view that it's "almost" ok to kill if it's "for the right cause"...this cause being the wish to ban abortions.

---

For the right cause if that cause is self preservation or looking after your family but certainly not for any political reasons.

Btw, I do not agree with the death penalty in any circumstance, sure there is the moral stance which I consider just but further to that a more punitive approach would be to lock-up the offender, for example a serial murderer or pedophile, without hope of parole nor enhanced status - or even visitors.

My argument is not that we get it wrong sometimes, tho' that in itself would be enough.

My argument is that it is wrong to take a human life, save when you are in mortal danger yourself and are defending your own life, or that of other innocents.

A prisoner in maximum security is no threat and therefore there is no need to kill them.

As to the cost, make them work for their keep. Give them a roof over their head and a survival diet, but make them work for everything else. Pay them in credits which they can use to buy better food or clothes or toothpaste or juice, instead of water or whatever. Do not allow cigarettes, why should we, they are there to protect society and to be punished for their actions.

Profits made go to the State to help pay for them.

I have no problem with life without parole as a punishment but it's the possible double standard because of the abortion clinics being his target. I suspect if he had blown up a library or a government building he wouldn't be considered for a plea bargain.

we have debated the moral issue of the death penalty often on this board so please could we steer clear of that as an issue on itself.