Comments about ‘Missouri executes white supremacist serial killer Joseph Paul Franklin’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Nov. 20 2013 12:49 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Play Nice
Herriman, UT

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.

Red
San Antonia, TX

Next, Let's get the Death Row line moving!

Californian#1@94131
San Francisco, CA

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."

Neanderthal
Phoenix, AZ

What?! He should-a got his comeuppance over 30 years ago. Keeping him on death row cost the taxpayer over $3 million.

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@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?

Play Nice
Herriman, UT

@ Spring Street
I 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 is "laffable."

Dante
Salt Lake City, UT

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 death penalty.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Funny how "right-to-lifers" are really...

DSB
Cedar Hills, UT

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.

WRK
Riverton, UT

@DSB

Amen and Amen and Amen.

Skeezx
Sacramento, CA

'Bout time they executed that piece of dirt!

FT
salt lake city, UT

@ DSB
Jesus 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.

wrz
Phoenix, AZ

@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.

DSB
Cedar Hills, UT

@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.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

"right-to-lifers"
...aren't...

@DSB
Cedar Hills, UT

Let 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 penalty people.

DSB
Cedar Hills, UT

@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.

crippledgeezer
preston, ID

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.

Miss Piggie
Phoenix, AZ

@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.

MrPlate
Lindon, UT

@LDS Liberal

You 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 philosophy.

worf
Mcallen, TX

Some people are confused by common sense.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments