Death Penalty??

If Mr. Avila is found guilty of the abduction and murder of Samantha Runnion do you think he should be given the death penalty?

And do you think juries in states where the death penalty is not an option should be given the opportunity to transfer a convicted person to another state where the death penalty is allowed?

In this case, I say YES!!!!! Send him (the killer whom ever he is) to Texas, we'll send him to Huntsville and you'll never have to worry about him doing this again and you won't have to worry about spending $20,000 a year to keep him in jail.

(FYI, the death penalty is not an option in California where this little girl was abducted, sexually assaulted and suffocated by her adult abductor.)

Originally posted by Multimom:
If Mr. Avila is found guilty of the abduction and murder of Samantha Runnion do you think he should be given the death penalty?

And do you think juries in states where the death penalty is not an option should be given the opportunity to transfer a convicted person to another state where the death penalty is allowed?

Click to expand...

1) Yes.
2) No.

Ken

Originally posted by Multimom:
If Mr. Avila is found guilty of the abduction and murder of Samantha Runnion do you think he should be given the death penalty?

(FYI, the death penalty is not an option in California where this little girl was abducted, sexually assaulted and suffocated by her adult abductor.)

Click to expand...

In extreme cases like these, it is hard to fight back emotions to reinstitute torture. Really! It would also be hard for me to convict the mother of Samatha if she took "justice" in her own hands against this guy...

I am for the death penalty where I feel assured they got the right person for a heinous crime. I have always been for the death penalty in these cases. I have only had second thoughts when DNA testing and the like have shown that innocent people are on death row; and also in cases where I did not think the punishment (death) fit the crime.

An example of the latter was...what was that lady's name Bush sent to the chair-- Karla Faye? She became religious in prison (following a truly heinous crime), married a religious man, had a number of religious leaders including the pope and Falwell speak up for her. Bush reportedly laughed at showing mercy before he had her fried.

Still, I would support Bush in frying this guy if I believed him to really be guilty. But it might be ok for him to rot for life in prison too-(but only if I thought it would be the worst of the two options.)

Cosmos

The lady Bush sent to die had done a particularly hateful and awful murder. She had a prison conversion, and even the warden agreed that she had been changed by God. She wanted to live to continue a ministry to other inmates. I don't mind Bush deciding to kill her anyway. What I find disgusting is his public response, mocking the woman in a fake scared voice: "Pwease down't kill me!"

States have the right to kill to defend the public. It's not that it's evil; it's that it's bad public policy. Check out the states that don't kill murderers. They average murder rates about 3.6. States that kill murderers have rates about 5.5. Even though murder rates declined greatly over the last ten years, they declined by smaller amounts in death penalty states.

Everything has consequences.

Originally posted by Multimom:
(FYI, the death penalty is not an option in California where this little girl was abducted, sexually assaulted and suffocated by her adult abductor.)

Click to expand...

Actually, in California this is considered a special case and the death penalty can be sought.

Ken

Ken is correct I recently discovered that this would be subject to the death penalty.

Also, in the state of Texas the Governor DOES NOT have the ability to pardon. All that is allowed for a death sentence convict is the potential for a 30 day stay of execution and that only in the fact of obviously new evidence.

Another story. 25 years ago a young girl was abducted, raped and beaten and left for dead. When she came to herself, she was able to stagger to a nearby house where the lady inside covered her body and called the police.

Because of the day and age and the fact that the perpetrator was only 14 he was ordered into counseling and given probation. The boy went to 2 counseling sessions and never went back.

The girls father nosed around a bit and found out where the boy lived. He drove over to the boys house where he discovered him and a group of his friends standing in the front yard smoking pot and drinking. He called the boy by name and when the kid stepped forward. The dad emptied the gun into the kid killing him. He got back in his car drove home told his wife what he had done and to call the police. When the officers arrived the told him, "Don't say anything, we don't want you to talk at all until you have a lawyer." The man pled guilty instead of diminished capacity and served 7 years and 8 months for 2nd degree murder.

Would you have convicted him? And if so what would sentence you hand down?

I would probably have convicted him, because the law is the law, but I doubt I would have given him jail time. In his situation I can't say that I wouldn't have done the same thing.

The death penalty is a punishment in society, set forth by God. I'm not going to go into all the verses about the critiria for the death penalty, but this I will say, if a person commits a crime worthy the death penalty, set forth by God's Word, then that person needs to be executed, dispite our emotions or circumstances.

Who are we, to circumvent God's Word?

Now, for those who the Lord saves after that person commits these crimes, the Lord has forgiven that person of their sins, past, present, and future. But! That person is still accountable to pay for his crime against society.

As for the few times that an innocent person is convicted wrongly, unfortunately, these things will happen, but we can not circumvent God's Word because of this, as we can not question God's ways.

People have accidents and are killed in cars, so do we lock up all the cars?

Airliners were hijacked and used as weapons and killed many people, so do we ground all air traffic?

Do we abolish the death penalty, because some innocent person might be wrongly executed? Don't you think that God himself realized that this would happen, yet He still set forth His laws for the death penalty.

Yes, I realize that this could even happen to me or one of my family, but God's Word is still God's Word, no matter how I or you feel.

[ July 23, 2002, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: Justified ]

Originally posted by Justified:
The death penalty is a punishment in society, set forth by God. I'm not going to go into all the verses about the critiria for the death penalty, but this I will say, if a person commits a crime worthy the death penalty, set forth by God's Word, then that person needs to be executed, dispite our emotions or circumstances.

Who are we, to circumvent God's Word?

Click to expand...

My guess is that you are talking about the Law of the Old Testament here since there doesn't seem to be any New Testament death penalty teaching...

Murderers should be executed: (Leviticus 24:17,21-22)
Blasphemers should be put to death: (Leviticus 24:14-16)
Those who curse their parents should be put to death: (Leviticus 20:9)
Those who sacrifice their children to Molech should be put to death: (Leviticus 20:2)
Those who commit adultery must be put to death: (Leviticus 20:10)
Those who commit incest should be put to death: (Leviticus 20:11-12)
Those who commit homosexual acts should be put to death (Leviticus 20:13)
Those who marry both a mother and a daughter should be put to death (Leviticus 20:14)
Those who commit beastiality should be put to death (Leviticus 20:15-16)

Is this what you mean?

[ July 23, 2002, 10:04 PM: Message edited by: Baptist Believer ]

Originally posted by cosmos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Multimom:
If Mr. Avila is found guilty of the abduction and murder of Samantha Runnion do you think he should be given the death penalty?

(FYI, the death penalty is not an option in California where this little girl was abducted, sexually assaulted and suffocated by her adult abductor.)

Click to expand...

In extreme cases like these, it is hard to fight back emotions to reinstitute torture. Really! It would also be hard for me to convict the mother of Samatha if she took "justice" in her own hands against this guy...
I am for the death penalty where I feel assured they got the right person for a heinous crime. I have always been for the death penalty in these cases. I have only had second thoughts when DNA testing and the like have shown that innocent people are on death row; and also in cases where I did not think the punishment (death) fit the crime.

An example of the latter was...what was that lady's name Bush sent to the chair-- Karla Faye? She became religious in prison (following a truly heinous crime), married a religious man, had a number of religious leaders including the pope and Falwell speak up for her. Bush reportedly laughed at showing mercy before he had her fried.

Still, I would support Bush in frying this guy if I believed him to really be guilty. But it might be ok for him to rot for life in prison too-(but only if I thought it would be the worst of the two options.)

Cosmos</font>[/QUOTE]First, I am with Multimom on both issues, but on the second, that probalily will never happen. When the country did away with the death penality in most states, that became a license to kill.

As for you, why should her becoming religious make her exempt from the death penality? To those who have accepted Christ and are murders, they go to Heaven. God, in the OT, gave commandments as to what should happen to evil persons. There was a time in our country, that rape, adultry, murder, etc., all had the death penatity. Not sure about adultry but it is still a law given by God. DNA doesn't change a thing. It didn't convict OJ and for those who are innocent(if they know Christ), they are also Heaven bound. For all who aren't Christians, that is their fault. I'm sure God knew there would be some that were innocent as humans make mistakes. Many have died that are innocent but hasn't many more died in wars? It seems ok there but let a murderer go free to kill again. I worked with a man who murdered his wife and since the trial was put off, he was alowed to return to work(State job), because he only needed 6 more months to get full retirement. Later he was convicted and sentenced to 20 years but only served 6 and was on the Sheriff's payroll to boot. He shot her with a 30 oo6 rifle while she was running. Should have gotten the death penality then. All of the appeals should be done away with. Three is enough. Ted Bundy lived another 10 years by apeals. Remember him....killed 30 or more women. He should have died within 6 months, period. The Word supports the death penality. The same goes for the Mother if she took justice in her owns hands.......death penality as she would have went against the law of the land and God.

God Bless...........Alex

Originally posted by The Galatian:
The lady Bush sent to die had done a particularly hateful and awful murder.

Click to expand...

Bush did not send her to die – a jury did. As was mentioned by Multimom, the governor does NOT have the power to prevent an execution – only delay it for 30 days to give the board time to reconsider the sentence.

Al Gore and the Democrats like to throw out the lie that Bush is killing people. They are either completely ignorant of the situation or they are deliberately deceptive.

She had a prison conversion, and even the warden agreed that she had been changed by God. She wanted to live to continue a ministry to other inmates. I don't mind Bush deciding to kill her anyway. What I find disgusting is his public response, mocking the woman in a fake scared voice: "Pwease down't kill me!"

Click to expand...

I don’t remember that and I followed case very closely. What is your source?

States have the right to kill to defend the public. It's not that it's evil; it's that it's bad public policy. Check out the states that don't kill murderers. They average murder rates about 3.6. States that kill murderers have rates about 5.5. Even though murder rates declined greatly over the last ten years, they declined by smaller amounts in death penalty states.

Click to expand...

Statistics are fun things… sometimes they are even helpful! The changes in the murder rate and the presence of the death penalty in those states are not necessarily related.

Everything has consequences.

Click to expand...

Yes. When you play fast and loose with the facts, you lose your credibility to speak to the issues.

For the record, I like George W. Bush as governor but there are things I like and don’t like about him. The lies that Al Gore and the Democrats told about him during the last presidential campaign did not deceive many Texans. We knew what was true and what wasn’t. Of course, Al Gore barely came to Texas except to complain about pollution (much of it coming across the border from Mexico – a federal issue), the problems with Texas public schools (we have an enormous number of students who do not speak English when they enter school – again, a situation that is mostly related to our location next to Mexico) and the death penalty issue over which Bush has little control.

The lies against Bush and Al Gore’s own propensity to tell giant and foolish fibs easily lost him the election.

Originally posted by The Galatian:
The lady Bush sent to die had done a particularly hateful and awful murder.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush did not send her to die – a jury did. As was mentioned by Multimom, the governor does NOT have the power to prevent an execution – only delay it for 30 days to give the board time to reconsider the sentence.

Bush was very amused by the whole thing, mocking her with his "Pwease don't kill me." mockery of her appeal.

Al Gore and the Democrats like to throw out the lie that Bush is killing people. They are either completely ignorant of the situation or they are deliberately deceptive.

Bush merely refused to pardon her, in spite of the requests of evangelist Pat Robertson, prison officials, and even the police officer who initially testified against her. But that's a judgement call, and she certainly was guilty. What's disgusting is his mockery of the process of killing another human being. No better than Karla Tucker's enjoyment of the process.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
She had a prison conversion, and even the warden agreed that she had been changed by God. She wanted to live to continue a ministry to other inmates. I don't mind Bush deciding to kill her anyway. What I find disgusting is his public response, mocking the woman in a fake scared voice: "Pwease down't kill me!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don’t remember that and I followed case very closely. What is your source?

Dallas Morning News. But do a search on "George Bush" and "Please don't kill me." It's gotten a lot of coverage. For the life of me, I can't see how any human would lower himself to that kind of thing. Evil or not, it's a human life here, and even if we have to kill some people, it's sick and evil to make light of it.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
States have the right to kill to defend the public. It's not that it's evil; it's that it's bad public policy. Check out the states that don't kill murderers. They average murder rates about 3.6. States that kill murderers have rates about 5.5. Even though murder rates declined greatly over the last ten years, they declined by smaller amounts in death penalty states.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statistics are fun things… sometimes they are even helpful! The changes in the murder rate and the presence of the death penalty in those states are not necessarily related.

Correlation does not, of course, prove causation. However, when you find this much difference between states that kill murderers, and those that don't, one has to conclude that something is going on here.

Maybe it's just that states that don't kill murderers are populated by better people, who aren't as violent. But that wouldn't explain why murder rates rose in states that reinstituted the death penalty in the late 80s.

Murder rates dropped in almost all states in the 90s, mostly because young males became a declining percentage of the population, and because prosperity tends to reduce crime. However, the decline did not erase the large differences between states that kill murderers and those that do not.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything has consequences.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes. When you play fast and loose with the facts, you lose your credibility to speak to the issues.

I'm not accusing you of playing fast and loose with the issues. I think it's possible that you never read about Bush and his joke about killing her. But it got a lot of press coverage, and it's not hard to see why.

...the problems with Texas public schools (we have an enormous number of students who do not speak English when they enter school

You may be pleased to learn, then, that minorities in Texas public schools have once more narrowed the gap between them and Anglo students. The reforms begun by Ross Perot have worked very well to get the state from dismal to mediocre. It's time to move on and raise the bar again.

I voted for Bush, once. After this episode, and the revelation that his commander can't recall him ever showing up for the Guard slot his daddy got him to keep him out of Vietnam, I've pretty much lost whatever respect I had for him.

Now he says that he's going to prevent the release of records on his role in the Harken collapse.

I thought he did some good things in Texas as governor. But I didn't know he was a convicted thief at the time.

Originally posted by The Galatian:
Bush merely refused to pardon her, in spite of the requests of evangelist Pat Robertson, prison officials, and even the police officer who initially testified against her. But that's a judgement call, and she certainly was guilty.

Click to expand...

Bush did not have the authority to pardon anyone on death row. It's one of those unusual aspects of the Texas Constitution. (It also helps keep politics out of the whole death penalty process.) The governor can only delay execution (once) by 30 days.

Bush cannot officially pardon people. Generally, however, the sitting Governer merely has to ask for it.

The reason the Texas Governer has so little power, across the board, is historical. Reconstruction, to be specific.

Capital Punishment is an outdated system. Killing people to prove killing people is wrong solves nothing.

Originally posted by Morat:
Bush cannot officially pardon people. Generally, however, the sitting Governer merely has to ask for it.

Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. What you describe is outside the jurisdiction of the law, although it probably is not illegal.

Here is the law so you and anyone else can check it for yourselves:

http://www.wf.net/~connally/txreadinessplan.html#Clemency

Here is information that originated in the Governor’s office:

http://www.click2houston.com/hou/news/stories/news-20000620-195045.html

Now stop playing games with the facts! You are killing your credibility.

The reason the Texas Governer has so little power, across the board, is historical. Reconstruction, to be specific.

Click to expand...

Yes, I took Texas History in 7th grade…

Originally posted by Candide:
Capital Punishment is an outdated system. Killing people to prove killing people is wrong solves nothing.

Click to expand...

It doesn't "prove" killing people is wrong -- we already know that...

It is considered the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime.

And it's usage is very subjective.

What happens when the government is wrong? Why kill when we don't have to and when we could be wrong?

EDIT TO ADD: If we all know killing is wrong, then why support state sanctioned killing?

[ July 24, 2002, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: Candide ]

Murder is wrong, not killing. Otherwise, we would not give guns to the police and the military.

Ken

mur·der Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

I don't think we want to get into the term "unlawful". The Holocaust was lawful under Hitler's regime. That doesn't make it any less murder.

Is the death penalty killing? Most certainly.

Does it involve one human killing another? Most certainly.

Does it involve premeditated malice? Let us see what malice is defined as...

Law. The intent, without just cause or reason, to commit a wrongful act that will result in harm to another.

So the question before us is whether or not capital punishment constitutes "just cause or reason". What purpose does the death penalty serve other than blind revenge? Surely, if not for the death penalty, the prison would and should spend the rest of his/her life in prison. Therefore, the prisoner is out of mainstream society and is of little threat to anyone. Perhaps, years later, the prisoner would (as is often the case), become rehabilitated. He/she can present his experiences in various programs to help prevent troubled teens from experiencing a similar fate. To many, death is an easy way out. The true punishment is knowing you will be in prison for the rest of your life.

God instituted the death penalty after the Flood and it has never been rescinded by Him. Also see Romans chapter 13.

Ken