The problem with the death penalty is that human life is ended and the executed person is deprived of the opportunity to change, to restore the harm done or compensate for it.

Mark Hacking committed one of the most brutal and heinous crimes in Utah history. Some say he should die but he remains alive today and perhaps even this cold-blooded killer may experience the opportunity to change for the better.

The death penalty isn't the only option, but in some cases it is the most correct option. When I hear of someone cutting open a woman and leaving her for dead, so that they can steal the unborn child of the woman, what penalty do you think is most correct for that?

When someone takes a child and the parents are terrorized for years wondering what happened to their kid, what penalty do you think is most correct for that?

No the death penalty isn't the only option, but in some cases, it is the most correct option.

Recently Israel let go a terrorist who in order to keep a family quiet while the police were around, smothered a kid to death to keep the kid from yelling after the terrorist grabbed his young sister by the feet, swung her around and bashed her head against a brick wall.

Israel let the terrorist go so that they could get back two dead bodies.

After being let go the terrorist vowed to continue to "fight Israel".

If Israel had executed this slime, he would never have been let go.

No sir, the death penalty does have its place.

With all due respect, Dennis, some of us need a little more persuading in order to believe that all criminals can be rehabilitated and become productive members of society.

Those of us who lived in Utah during the 70's and early 80's remember the panic that swept through our state due to the murderous rampages of Ted Bundy and Arthur Gary Bishop.

Then we read and hear about mobsters, gangsters, pedophiles and serial rapists whose entire lives are enveloped by the crimes they commit.

YES, we can and must do better in the way we prosecute and rehabilitate criminals in this country. Issues such as mandatory sentences for drug use and petty theft must be re-examed. But sadly, some criminals will simply never change their ways.

The death penalty is not about revenge...Its about justice. The death penalty should be a deterrent to others thinking about killing someone out of greed, lust, or hate etc....If the U.S. used the death penalty more and swiftly after trial the inmate population would go down.

Also why should the tax payers pay to keep a killer alive?

Why burden the victims of crime and the innocent with those that have shown they don't belong in a civillized society?

That people who kill can be re-habilitated is besides the point. If someone were to kill someone, then "find Jesus" in prison, so what?

That doesn't make up for what they did.

How can a murderer restore the life that he took? Can he pay money for that life? If so, how much; one dollar, one million dollars? How much is your life worth to you? How much would you accept for your spouse or for your children? Are they for sale?

Would you accept "public service" as payment for a member of your family? Would you gladly see someone you love murdered so that the killer could build a park in their honor, or a school, or an entire nation? Would that excuse the murder?

What is just and equal restitution? There is none. But there is justice. The death penalty is just and it requires from the killer the exact debt that he owes, no more and no less.

Perhaps Dennis would re-habilitate them in his home.

Where is the "equal restitution" and "justice" you speak of when considering Utah's home-grown recent killer, Mark Hacking?

Re: Clark Larsen, Nathan Seegmiller, Mike Richards, & Dave

It is quite evident that when presented with facts, both secular and non-secular, and pure logic, there will always be a few miscreants in every society who refuse to entertain the dark nature behind putting people to death.

The act of playing God and the thought of putting people to death for these types must exact some measure of power and control in their saddened lives.

Have compassion for these people.

Perhaps murderers can change and lead better and more productive lives. In fact, I don't doubt a few of them can.

Nevertheless, every time I hear or read of some convicted murderer escaping from prison and murdering someone again, I can't help thinking that it would have been better that they had not had the chance.

There is at least one certainty about execution. It the one absolute preventative of recidivism.

It is extremely interesting (and quite telling) to see that nobody on this subject who supports the eye-for-an-eye philosophy of the death penalty has attempted to address why it is that the heinous crime of murder at the hands of Mark Hacking resulted in him living out his days in a Utah prison.

Our society is not harmed by the permanent removal of a person who has done something very bad. We have no shortage of human beings many of which are just a capable of doing great things as the person removed.

If execution of the bad person is not a perfect prevention against bad things it is only that the possibility of execution for bad things is so remote. If a person was guarenteed to die immediately after killing some one else there would be much less killing.

Mark Hacking was sentenced to life in prison. He is not on death row. Because of the sentence given him by our legal system, he is not part of this discussion.

Had he been given the death sentence, then I would support his execution - even though he is a member of my extended family.

There are others who, like Mark Hacking will rot away in prison for the rest of their lives. Mark Hoffman is an example. How many people were murdered by his home-made bombs?

A quirk in the legal system allows some to rot in prison while others are executed. Is it moral to have two standards? I don't think so. Is it justice? I don't think so. Is it legal? Yes, it is legal.

Mark Douglas Hacking murdered his pregnant wife and dumped her body in the trash. Hacking admitted he fatally shot Lori Soares Hacking while she was asleep in their apartment. Hacking cut a deal and instead of being put to death (as per the eye-for-an-eye advocates scream for on this blog) is now being pampered in The Utah State Prison.

Is this an example of "justice" or "equal restitution" that the eye-for-an-eyers above are clamoring for?

So, we should rehabilitate murderers and allow them to become "productive" members of society? To what purpose? For all of its faults execution has been totally effective against repeat offenders. No one has ever returned from an execution to murder again. The same cannot be said of those that have been "rehabilitated" and returned to society, or even to living in the prison population.

Life without possibility of parole might be the best alternative as far as cost to the taxpayer is concerned. Since it takes ten or more years to carry out an execution, court costs, and lawyer fees, could easily add up to more than being locked up in a cell with one hour out every 24 for exercise for the rest of the murderer's life. In fact many convicted murderers may well prefer execution.

To "always a few miscreants - 9:08"

My response to your comment is to ask, where should society, along with the justice system, draw the line between compassion and justice?

Let's talk about drugs for example. While most Americans oppose making drugs legal, they do agree that mandatory sentences for drug abuse and drug possession ha shown to be ridiculous and counter-productive. Drug abusers need treatment before they need prison.

What about juveniles who commit violent crimes like robbery and assault. Should some be tried as adults, where they could end up in prison well passed 18? What about those who commit rape and/or murder? That one is a thorny subject with no easy solution, but I would agree that each case MUST BE looked at on an individual basis.

There there are people like Ted Bundy, Arthur Gary Bishop, Jeffery Dahmer and Timothy McVeigh. These people have taken many innocent lives, along the way destroying other lives, ripping apart families and making us all more fearful.

You may strongly disagree, but in my view, compassion for these people can only come by way of the chair or the firing squad.

It is always amusing to read the rationale of our hard-core conservative friends who worship the death penalty.

Mike Richards and others like him, are rabidly gung-ho on putting people to death for "justice" and "equal restitution" reasons at all times except when one of their own (Mark Hacking) brutally murders his wife and unborn child, cops a plea and instead of "equal restitution" he escapes death.

And this oddly enough is "not part of this discussion" as deemed by fellow poster, Mike Richards who also happens to be LDS.

A very peculiar people, indeed and Mike Richards is one of their peculiar spokespersons.

No far-right poster has yet been able to justify the fact that the brutal murderer, Mark Hacking (an LDS guy)is somehow immune from their eye-for-an-eye put all murderers to death philosophy and hit list.

I have no compassion for murderers, nor do I care if they can/cannot be rehabilitated. That is why I think they should have to serve life in prison. Death is too good for them, let them rot, a fate worse than death.

Anonymous - While I don't represent the far right, I can provide this explanation for Mark Hacking's status. It has nothing to do with his religion or the color of his skin. It has everything to do with how the DA chose to close this case. Mark copped a plea and avoided the death penalty. In return, the DA saved a lot of time and taxpayer $$ to put a killer away for life.

Now, imagine if we didn't have the death penalty. What would Mark Hacking have been allowed to plea down to? 25 to life, with the possibility of parole in a few years? Would that have been justice? Having the death penalty provides prosecutors with the tools they need to exact the proper punishment for murderers.

Life in prison? Certainly.
Put to death? Certainly not. The human life is ended and the executed person is deprived of the opportunity to change, to restore the harm done or compensate for it.

No man has the right to play God.
When that happens - darkness takes over.

I am LDS and have no problem executing an LDS person who commits murder. I think, if you know how to read, Mike Richards states that he would support the execution of Mark Hacking. Mormons do not protect Mormons who murder. The fact is we need to execute, and do it quickly after the conviction. This would be a deterrant. Right now too many people sit on death row and are never actually executed. A penalty not carried out is not a deterrent. I have learned that from my children. I can threaten punishment all I want, but if I don't actually do it, eventually they lose all fear of the punishment.
If life in prison was worse than execution, why do so many fight to get life in prison instead of the death penalty

So what's it gonna be MEB?
If it's an eye-for-an-eye deal, somebody (a dead wife and unborn baby) is not getting full restitution or justice.
The argument is that the death penalty is not the only option but the other side it is the only way for justice to prevail.
A living murderer is "justice?"

By just reading the lame logic of the death penalty supporters on this post, it is quite clear why only a few societies in the world still condone it and why higher minds have seen to it that a moratorium is in existence.

Some people, trying to work through their own personal dark demons fixate on wanting others to die.

Some very sick puppies out there running around loose.

Let's all step back just for a minute and think of what happens when someone murders someone else. The murderer decides that he has the right to take away the agency of his victim, that he has a right to decide whether his victim will live and when his victim will die.

The victim has a God given right to live out his complete life and to live as long as God grants.

Both the murderer and the victim are members of families who care greatly about those people, even the murderer who has done the unthinkable.

On the other hand, Society has the obligation to protect its members from murderers who act as if they are God.

What is to be done?

Protect society first by executing the murderer while, at the same time, extending love and support for those families who are left behind.

Society cannot function without justice. Society cannot play God and let the families of victims suffer. Society must justly handle all that it can.

God alone can determine when the murderer has finally paid his debt in full and when (or if) the murderer can be set free.

Anonymous (I don't know why I take your obnoxious bate every time. I would never last as a trout) - Your circular logic is dizzying. On one hand you say that it's too cruel to take a life. Then you say that it's more cruel to give them a life sentence and let them rot in jail. Aren't you then saying that you favor the most cruel punishment available, and you are more fixated on a worse punishment than capital punishment?

Worse, you say that no man has the right to play God. Isn't judging man for his crimes supposed to be left to God (according to the Bible)? We have the 'right' to cage a man for the rest of his life, with no hope for ever seeing the outside world, but we don't have the 'right' to take his life in return for the life he has taken?

And where is it written in any document (Bill of Rights, Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Ted Kennedy's personal journal) that we don't have the right to play God??

What's wrong with revenge, anyway?

I understand the practical case of doing away with free-lance, *private* revenge; people are hot-tempered and usually incapable of recognizing their own faults in disputes, so you'd have a bunch of intractable blood feuds where both sides thought they were in the right. So we give up our private right of vengeance, and entrust the government to do justice for us -- through an impartial, rigorous process, designed to weigh the facts free from personal passions.

Those who are compassionate to the cruel inevitably end up being cruel to the compassionate.

I am a little confused by your logic Mike you state “murderers who act as if they are god” and that “god alone can decide when the murderer has paid his debt in full.” then you propose that society not only can “act as if they are god” by deciding if the murderer should live or die but that society should second guess god’s decision to grant the murderer continued life.

@ 9:17,

We the people have not given a murderer the right to take a life. We the people have enacted laws to deal with those murderers who take life. We the people have appointed judges to sentence murderers to death. We the people have appointed executioners to carry out the sentence. We the people have acted responsibly to stabilize society.

A murderer has chosen for himself to kill another human being, how he wants and when he wants. That right was not given to the murderer by US, the people. WE the people act responsibly with the power to end life.

God, our Heavenly Father, has the power to give life and to end life. He also has the right to judge each of us. He does that through His son Jesus Christ.

Only our physical bodies die at death. Our spirit continues on. Christ will determine when the spirit of a murderer has paid the price in full for the act of murder.

Each murderer will have his day in court with Christ. Each murderer will receive a just and proper sentence from Christ. Each murderer will fulfill the terms of that sentence from Christ - in full.

@ 9:27 - clarification,

After re-reading my 6:02 p.m.post, I realize that one of the sentences makes no sense at all. That sentence is, "Society cannot play God and let the families of victims suffer."

The correct wording is: "Society cannot let the families of victims suffer."

My posts run long and I often have to edit them severely to fit within the 200 word limit. The 6:02 post was a post whose original content ran about 500 words. I chopped it and trimmed it several times before it fit the 200 word limit. Obviously, I didn't proof read it properly.

Sorry for the confusion that I caused.

MEB -- "I would never last as a trout."

LOL.