Should Scott Roeder receive the death penalty?

[Bo D]

Do you believe that the alleged killer of the doctor should receive the death penalty if convicted?

These are the responses I received in another thread.

No, and for the same reason I dont think anyone should. Death is an easy out for these people. A lifetime in prison seems a far worse punishment.

My stance upon this has not changed, and the short answer is no.

"No" because the justice system cannot consistently adjudicate at this point in time.

If the state that he is tried in, declared him guilty, and that was the punishment for the crime....then YES.

So ...the causing of death in one instance is ok ... but in the other, it is not?

one committed crime....the other did not.

I am thinking that I read that according to the A.G.of KS this killing didn't meet the criteria for seeking the death penalty in KS.  Perhaps, I am wrong and I don't have time to research it at this moment. 
However, it can be argued either way.
Here is a link, arguing for the death penalty.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1821013/dr_tillers_murderer_should_be_charged.html

If I should be able to find a link to prove I just didn't dream the A.G.'s statement I will post it later.
Sorry, i can't find anything at this time except a statement from Nola Foulston indicating the charges would be 1 count of first degree murder,and two lesser counts.  In Kansas, the charge would be capital murder if the death penalty were being sought.

Very good. But let's for the moment forget about the nuances of differing state laws and just assume the death penalty is a possibility if convicted.

Would you (anyone) ask for the death penalty?

Forgive me if I'm giving myself away here, but I cannot condone the taking of life - for whatever reason.

[Palehorse]

Given the fact that our judicial system is increasingly coming under fire for railroading, manufacturing evidence, and falsely convicting innocent individuals for crimes they did not commit, some of these death penalty infractions, I cannot in good faith endorse a practice that cannot be administered fairly and with a high level of confidence within the laws of the land.

In my mind it is better for 100 guilty men to go free than for1 innocent man to be convicted of a crime he did not commit. How many innocent men (and women BTW) have been sentenced to death, only to be freed years later when the truth comes out? Even worse, how many had their sentences carried out before the truth was known?

You want to talk about murder in the name of the state? That is happening!

[Bo D]

Given the fact that our judicial system is increasingly coming under fire for railroading, manufacturing evidence, and falsely convicting innocent individuals for crimes they did not commit, some of these death penalty infractions, I cannot in good faith endorse a practice that cannot be administered fairly and with a high level of confidence within the laws of the land.

In my mind it is better for 100 guilty men to go free than for1 innocent man to be convicted of a crime he did not commit. How many innocent men (and women BTW) have been sentenced to death, only to be freed years later when the truth comes out? Even worse, how many had their sentences carried out before the truth was known?

You want to talk about murder in the name of the state? That is happening!

You have your reasons - I have mine. How can a society claim to be "civilized" when the state routinely takes the life of a human being?

[Locutus]

Interesting question isn't it Bo?  The same ones that are screaming to high heaven about abortion are the same ones ready to off someone when they commit a crime.

I guess all life is precious, even Terri Schiavo's life, up until the point that they piss you off. 

[Palehorse]

You have your reasons - I have mine. How can a society claim to be "civilized" when the state routinely takes the life of a human being?

I really do not disagree, and believe your question to be a very valid one. To be honest I cannot say I could support the death penalty even if the issues I previously stated were removed.

Now, that doesn't mean if some jackass kills someone in my family I wouldn't want to kill them myself, for surely that is the natural reaction. But isn't that one of the reasons we have laws in the first place, to remove emotional / irrational thinking from the crime and punishment process? Yet, in its place has come greed. . .

And to Locutus' point, I find it quite contradictory to see pro lifer's chomping at the bit to kill someone convicted of a crime. Not to mention the zealots.

The zealots will quote you the old "eye for an eye" passage, which is in direct opposition to "thou shalt not kill". . .among others. . .

[Henry Hawk]

again, your average Christian in America today, will not shout an eye for an eye.....

for me personally, I am NOT an advocate of ANYBODY being killed, but IF a person convicted of murder (100%) cannot EVER be trusted back into our society, without fear of this person doing it again....then, I see it, that he will be sent to be judged by God, who will determine his ultimate sentence.

[Bo D]

again, your average Christian in America today, will not shout an eye for an eye.....

for me personally, I am NOT an advocate of ANYBODY being killed, but IF a person convicted of murder (100%) cannot EVER be trusted back into our society, without fear of this person doing it again....then, I see it, that he will be sent to be judged by God, who will determine his ultimate sentence.

I'm not saying that if "a person convicted of murder (100%)" should ever be released back into society. Never have said that.

[Henry Hawk]

I'm not saying that if "a person convicted of murder (100%)" should ever be released back into society. Never have said that.

I know you didn't bo, but, I guess I don't see the point of tax payers spending millions of dollars to house these guys for the rest of their lives....

[Bo D]

I know you didn't bo, but, I guess I don't see the point of tax payers spending millions of dollars to house these guys for the rest of their lives....

Oh, yeah!!!!! KILL 'EM!!!! IT'S CHEAPER!!!!

[Henry Hawk]

Oh, yeah!!!!! KILL 'EM!!!! IT'S CHEAPER!!!!

so, just let these guys live off tax payers hard working dollars.........three squares a day, smokes, gym, TV,  healthcare....
all because THEY .... by their own choice, decided to KILL somebody's loved one.

I believe sending them to God NOW, is JUST as merciful as letting them live in prison for 40 years....THEN going before God.

[Gryphon]

so, just let these guys live off tax payers hard working dollars.........three squares a day, smokes, gym, TV,  healthcare....
all because THEY .... by their own choice, decided to KILL somebody's loved one.

I believe sending them to God NOW, is JUST as merciful as letting them live in prison for 40 years....THEN going before God.

It's actually more expensive to kill 'em, on average.

[Exterminator]

It's actually more expensive to kill 'em, on average.

Must you bring math into every subject?   

[Henry Hawk]

It's actually more expensive to kill 'em, on average.

that is only because of the ridicules judicial system of allowing appeal after appeal and huge lawyer expenses...

It seems to me, IF, a person is 1000% guilty, with no possible room for error.  Then he/she could be taken immediatly and have the sentence carried out.

but I think you probably are correct, I have read it costs, outrageous to have a death sentence carried out.

[Bo D]

so, just let these guys live off tax payers hard working dollars.........three squares a day, smokes, gym, TV,  healthcare....

Nope - never said that either.

Keep rationalizing, Hank. It has been said that rationalization is more important than sex - try to go a day without rationalizing, then try to go a day without sex.

[Bo D]

It really says something about us when we start debating about whether it's cheaper to just go ahead and kill somebody.