What kind of a detriment is 36 years after the fact? The constitution
guarantees a swift trial. This social misfit should have been executed years
ago. When the victims family members die of natural causes before the criminal
is executed, there lies the crime.
Next, Let's get the Death Row line moving!
Over the decades since we have a legal definition of "hate crime," and
the judicial system has been able to consider prejudice or bigotry in charging,
convicting, and sentencing people, there has been a lot of loose usage and
manipulating and misusing of that concept to fit various agendas. Some people are quick to label anything bad that happens to anyone of any
"minority" group as a hate crime. They are wrong, because that kind of
labeling trivializes what a creature like Joseph Franklin has done, and actually
trivializes genuine evil.Some people say all crimes result from hate
and we don't need additional charges of hate crimes. They are wrong,
because the enormity of Joseph Franklin's bigot-based murders and the blood
of his many innocent victims cry out for something more than an ordinary charge
of "premeditated murder with malice aforethought."Franklin
is the poster boy for why need to continue to be conscious of hate crimes as a
real issue--and why we need to stop calling every dirty look from someone who is
different a "hate crime."
What?! He should-a got his comeuppance over 30 years ago. Keeping him on death
row cost the taxpayer over $3 million.
@play nice a swift trial is in regards to protecting the accused from
suffering through a years of incarceration and trails for a crime they may or
may not have committed not your desire to have people killed. do you have any
idea how many people have been found to be wrongly convicted, what would be an
acceptable time we should put on appeals knowing how slowly our system often
works? how many incident people is it alright to execute in the nam elf
expediency? lastly, what makes you think the death penalty is a deterrent int he
first place? if it is only a deterrent to the person that is being executed they
are already in prison, if its about money then again I ask how much money is it
worth saving to know you may kill an innocent person?
@ Spring StreetI stand by my earlier statement. This man was found guilty
decades ago. The expense and suffering of the victims families need never have
been this drawn out. The same can be said of Lafferty. His drawn out process
Spring Street, thanks for using the word, "deterrent." I was wondering
what "Play Nice" was referring to when using the word,
"detriment."However, I generally agree with imposing the
death penalty in Franklin's case. Franklin should have been put to sleep
years ago. Not necessarily because the death penalty is a deterrent, but because
some crimes are so grievous and detestable that they warrant imposing the
ultimate penalty. And, for those who don't know, it costs the taxpayers
much more to execute a murderer than to incarcerate him for life, mostly by
reason of the considerable attorneys fees and court costs and court time spent
contesting the imposition of the death penalty.While it's true
that the Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights guarantees the right to a speedy
(not "swift") trial, that guarantee runs to the benefit of the accused,
not the general public or the victim. Franklin received a speedy trial, just not
a speedy imposition of the sentence he received at the conclusion of the trial.
He apparently did not object to being deprived of a speedy imposition of the
Funny how "right-to-lifers" are really...
Let me finish that for you, LDS Lib. Funny how "right-to-lifers" are
really for the protection of INNOCENT life, and many right-to-lifers, with no
hypocrisy at all, are able to distinguish between innocent life and heinous,
murderous, guilty life that doesn't deserve to share the planet with
innocent life. Only in the minds of the most shallow thinkers is this
contradictory or hypocritical.
@DSBAmen and Amen and Amen.
'Bout time they executed that piece of dirt!
@ DSBJesus and the scriptures make no distinction between
"innocent" or "guilty" lives. They are all the same in the eyes
of the saviour.With that being said and knowing the amount of time and
costs it takes to execute a convict it makes more sense to throw them in a hole
for the rest of their life with no chance of parole.
@Dante:"And, for those who don't know, it costs the taxpayers
much more to execute a murderer than to incarcerate him for life..."Where you gettin' this stuff? It costs a few cents for a bucks for
bullets or a strong rope for hangin'. It cost millions to keep someone in
prison for life. Like the kid in today's news who killed a young girl.
He got life plus 80+ years with no possibility of parole. He should-a got death
since he admitted to the crime. So, in 60 or 70 years when he finally dies in
prison the taxpayer will have shelled out probably 6 to 10 million bucks... for
essentially nothing."Franklin received a speedy trial, just not
a speedy imposition of the sentence..."The law is flawed if a
death sentence is allowed to string out for years and not carried post haste.
Sure, some innocent people might die... but hundreds of innocent people die
every day on our freeways... from excessive speeding and the government and
other drivers don't seem to have a care in the world about it.
@FT - are you familiar with a millstone? Look up Matthew 18:6 and then teach us
what Jesus thought of those who offend children. Try reading the Old Testament
then return to let us all know the death penalty is not scripturally sound. If
you consider yourself equal to a heinous rapist and murderer, there are classes
to improve your self esteem. The scriptures and Jesus clearly teach
otherwise.That being said, I agree it's too costly and takes
too long to effectuate death penalties, and I think it should be reserved for
only the most vile whose guilt is either admitted or beyond any doubt
whatsoever. Convict in the absence of reasonable doubt, but sentence to death
only in the absence of all possible doubt. And everyone on death row who claims
innocence should have DNA testing available, if applicable. But, I
believe there are some crimes that are horrible enough to warrant a societal
statement that those who commit them are not deserving of living among us, and I
think that's an important statement to make, even if it takes a long time.
Hills, UTLet me finish that for you, LDS Lib. Funny how
"right-to-lifers" are really for the protection of INNOCENT life,2:15 p.m. Nov. 20, 2013======== Please explain
how the Government sanctioned execution of a citizen "protects innocent
life".Did it bring any of those people back?So, what did
it accomplish?Revenge?If anything, it allows Government the
ultimate power over the people.This is the same rationalizing that
North Korea, Communist China, Sharia Law Middle East, Cuba, and the former Nazi
Germany uses to control the masses.America is the ONLY country to
still sanction the death penalty.I thought we were more civilized than
that...BTW -- You can't be pro-death penalty, pro-war, and
pro-life all at the same time.Oh, and Jesus was crucified by the pro-death
@LDS Lib - thank you for cementing my earlier point about shallow thinking. I
totally forgot about sanctimony, though, so thanks for reminding us all about
that as well.
America is the only country that sanctions the death penalty? 3 or 4 weeks ago
North Korea executed 80 for watching tv from the south. Almost every week we
hear about executions in muslim countries under the guise of sharia law. In
Russia Vladimir.Putin is trying to bring communism back and has executed a few
for speaking out. There are countries in South America who still execute
prisoners. The only difference is in America it takes decades to execute some
body while these other countries do it in days. If there is DNA evidence give
one appeal to prove no mistakes in the trial then execute the condemned. Stop
the decades of useless appeals, then you will have some serious deterrent to
committing these heinous crimes.
@LDS Liberal:"Please explain how the Government sanctioned execution
of a citizen 'protects innocent life.'"Dead criminals
can't kill innocent lives again."So, what did it
accomplish? Revenge?"Incarcerating criminals for the rest of
their lives could be considered an act of revenge."If anything,
it allows Government the ultimate power over the people."And who
is the government? The people, of course."This is the same
rationalizing that North Korea, Communist China, Sharia Law Middle East, Cuba,
and the former Nazi Germany uses to control the masses."Getting
rid of vile criminals is not controlling the masses, as you suggest. It's
cleansing the country of trash."BTW -- You can't be
pro-death penalty, pro-war, and pro-life all at the same time."Pro-death gets rid of the vile criminal. Pro-war brings criminal leaders to
justice."Oh, and Jesus was crucified by the pro-death penalty
people."Jesus' death paid for the sins of the world...
including yours. Check your copy of the Holy Writ.
@LDS LiberalYou say, "You can't be pro-death penalty,
pro-war, and pro-life all at the same time."I assume that's
what DSB referred to as shallow thinking. Perhaps I can help.Pro-death penalty: Reasonable people can indeed believe some horrific crimes
warrant this ultimate punishment.Pro-war: No one is pro-war, but
many reasonable people, including pro-lifers favoring the death penalty, believe
war is sometimes an unfortunate necessity to protect freedoms or help liberate
oppressed people.Pro-life: Many people believe innocent life of
unborn children should be protected. Although a novel concept to you, many of
these same people also believe criminals guilty of the most horrific crimes
should still face the ultimate punishment, and that war may still be an
unfortunate necessity to protect freedom and liberate oppressed people.That these positions are inherently contradictory is only asserted by
political shills who think such intellectually vacuous tripe is a clever
juxtaposition of "pro-life" tenets they've simply fabricated for
political purposes to expose supposed inconsistencies that simply do not exist.
It's really not very clever, and a dishonest characterization of pro-life
Some people are confused by common sense.
@Mr.Plate - what you say is true, but it won't stop LDS Liberal from
posting the exact same "tripe" next time a death penalty article is
written. It's not about understanding - it's about the attempted
blind advancement of his political dogma in the face of common sense.Same drivel, same clearly understandable rebuttal, different day.
LDS Liberal: The Bible and the Book of Mormon basically state that when one
spills innocent blood that the individual forfeits their own life. The Book of
Mormon also pretty much states that one can kill when protecting their country,
family and others from an aggressor. Thus war is a means that the Book of
Mormon supports in its entirety. The Prophets have stated in no uncertain tones
that abortion on demand is wrong. However, they support abortion when the life
of the mother or child is endanger, when in cases of rape and incest. The
stipulation is that prayer must be used before just abortion on demand.I support all three measures. You don't but the question is what would
it take to see that there are reasons for the death penalty, war and the life of
an unborn child. Too many liberals see their own agendas and fail to see the
ways of our Heavenly Father in them.